Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.923 (2026)

Modifying or setting aside order or judgment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      419B.923 Modifying or setting aside order or judgment. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, on motion and such notice and hearing as the court may direct, the court may modify or set aside any order or judgment made by it. Reasons for modifying or setting aside an order or judgment include, but are not limited to:

      (a) Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors in the order or judgment arising from oversight or omission. These mistakes and errors may be corrected by the court at any time on its own motion or on the motion of a party and after notice as the court orders to all parties who have appeared. During the pendency of an appeal, an order or judgment may be corrected as provided in subsection (7) of this section.

      (b) Excusable neglect.

      (c) Newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to present it at the hearing from which the order or judgment issued.

      (2) A motion to modify or set aside an order or judgment or request a new hearing must be accompanied by an affidavit that states with reasonable particularity the facts and legal basis for the motion.

      (3) A motion to modify or set aside an order or judgment must be made within a reasonable time except no order or judgment pursuant to ORS 419B.527 may be set aside or modified during the pendency of a proceeding for the adoption of the ward, nor after a petition for adoption has been granted.

      (4) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, notice and a hearing as provided in ORS 419B.195, 419B.198, 419B.201, 419B.205, 419B.208, 419B.310, 419B.325 and 419B.893 must be provided in any case when the effect of modifying or setting aside the order or judgment will or may be to deprive a parent of the legal custody of the child or ward, to place the child or ward in an institution or agency or to transfer the child or ward from one institution or agency to another. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to a parent whose rights have been terminated under ORS 419B.500 to 419B.524 or whose child has been permanently committed by order or judgment of the court unless an appeal from the order or judgment is pending.

      (5) When the person giving notice has reason to know, as described in ORS 419B.636, that an Indian child is involved, notice must be provided as required under ORS 419B.639.

      (6) Except when the child or ward is an Indian child, notice and a hearing are not required when the effect of modifying or setting aside the order or judgment will be to transfer the child or ward from one foster home to another.

      (7) A motion under subsection (1) of this section may be filed with and decided by the trial court during the time an appeal from a judgment is pending before an appellate court. The moving party shall serve a copy of the motion on the appellate court. The moving party shall file a copy of the trial court’s order or judgment in the appellate court within seven days of the date of the trial court order or judgment. Any necessary modification of the appeal required by the court order or judgment must be pursuant to rule of the appellate court.

      (8) This section does not limit the inherent power of a court to modify an order or judgment within a reasonable time or the power of a court to set aside an order or judgment for fraud upon the court. [2001 c.622 §33; 2003 c.396 §97; 2020 s.s.1 c.14 §60; 2021 c.398 §77]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016). · cites it 47× “Father did not say anything about the absence of his attorney at the hearing; nor did he indicate to the court that he was opposed to the changes in the permanent plans. On September 6, 2013, the court entered permanency judgments consistent with its decision at the hearing.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 344 P.3d 1123 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 53× “ORS 419B.923 provides a trial-level mechanism to set aside judgments in dependency cases, and, because that remedy is available to challenge the adequacy of dependency counsel, Geist is inapplicable.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. D. G., 317 P.3d 950 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 28× “” Mother also argued that, if the juvenile court “determines that it is not within its inherent authority to set aside a void judgment,” the court should nonetheless set aside the judgment pursuant to ORS 419B.923(1), arguing that “the court’s lack of authority to terminate a…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. B. A. S., 221 P.3d 806 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 40× “In this consolidated appeal, mother and father (parents) appeal the juvenile court’s denial of their motions under ORS 419B.923 to set aside a judgment terminating their parental rights to their three children.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. G. R., 197 P.3d 61 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 19× “5 ORS 419B.923 provides, in part: “(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, on motion and such notice and hearing as the court may direct, the court may modify or set aside any order or judgment made by it.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. M. R. (In re A. R. L. U.), 437 P.3d 1233 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 18× “*1234 *50 Mother appeals an order denying her motion under ORS 419B.923 to set aside a judgment terminating her parental rights to her daughter A.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. J. J., 317 Or. App. 188 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 8× “, the “excusable neglect” standard in ORS 419B.923 must be construed liberally in favor of a parent’s fundamental interest in not having their parental rights “irrevocably terminated” in their absence.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. K. M. P., 284 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 11× “, we highlighted the legislative history of ORS 419B.923(1), specifically the provision regarding “excusable neglect”: “[T]the legislative history of ORS 419B.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. W. A. C., 328 P.3d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× ““Reasons for modifying or setting aside an order or judgment include, but are not limited to” clerical mistakes, excusable neglect, and newly discovered evidence.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. E. (In re J. R.), 441 P.3d 713 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “3d 1159 (2016), "the appropriate remedy in this case is to remand for an evidentiary hearing under ORS 419B.923 on mother's claim of inadequate assistance of counsel," Dept.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. K. H. H., 466 P.3d 698 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 11× “The Department of Human Services argues that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying father’s motion on that basis.”
State v. N. L., 239 P.3d 255 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 19× “” She contended that the juvenile court had “the authority to correct an error or mistake at any time under ORS 419B.923, even during the pendency of an appeal.”
Show all 75 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.923(1) — 33 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. D. G., 317 P.3d 950 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “” Mother also argued that, if the juvenile court “determines that it is not within its inherent authority to set aside a void judgment,” the court should nonetheless set aside the judgment pursuant to ORS 419B.923(1), arguing that “the court’s lack of authority to terminate a…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 344 P.3d 1123 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “ORS 419B.923 provides a trial-level mechanism to set aside judgments in dependency cases, and, because that remedy is available to challenge the adequacy of dependency counsel, Geist is inapplicable.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. G. R., 197 P.3d 61 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “5 ORS 419B.923 provides, in part: “(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, on motion and such notice and hearing as the court may direct, the court may modify or set aside any order or judgment made by it.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016). “Father did not say anything about the absence of his attorney at the hearing; nor did he indicate to the court that he was opposed to the changes in the permanent plans. On September 6, 2013, the court entered permanency judgments consistent with its decision at the hearing.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. J. J., 317 Or. App. 188 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “, the “excusable neglect” standard in ORS 419B.923 must be construed liberally in favor of a parent’s fundamental interest in not having their parental rights “irrevocably terminated” in their absence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.923(1)(a) — 4 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. W. A. C., 328 P.3d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). ““Reasons for modifying or setting aside an order or judgment include, but are not limited to” clerical mistakes, excusable neglect, and newly discovered evidence.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. B. A. S., 221 P.3d 806 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “In this consolidated appeal, mother and father (parents) appeal the juvenile court’s denial of their motions under ORS 419B.923 to set aside a judgment terminating their parental rights to their three children.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. J. M., 301 P.3d 962 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
In Re Kas, 200 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.923(1)(b) — 15 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. J. J., 317 Or. App. 188 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “, the “excusable neglect” standard in ORS 419B.923 must be construed liberally in favor of a parent’s fundamental interest in not having their parental rights “irrevocably terminated” in their absence.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. G. R., 197 P.3d 61 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “5 ORS 419B.923 provides, in part: “(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, on motion and such notice and hearing as the court may direct, the court may modify or set aside any order or judgment made by it.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. K. M. P., 284 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “, we highlighted the legislative history of ORS 419B.923(1), specifically the provision regarding “excusable neglect”: “[T]the legislative history of ORS 419B.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. K. M. J., 356 P.3d 1132 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. M. B., 369 P.3d 419 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.923(1)(c) — 4 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. B. M. C., 355 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. N. L., 239 P.3d 255 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “” She contended that the juvenile court had “the authority to correct an error or mistake at any time under ORS 419B.923, even during the pendency of an appeal.”
State v. NL, 239 P.3d 255 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
In Re Kas, 200 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.923(2) — 4 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016). “Father did not say anything about the absence of his attorney at the hearing; nor did he indicate to the court that he was opposed to the changes in the permanent plans. On September 6, 2013, the court entered permanency judgments consistent with its decision at the hearing.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. B. A. S., 221 P.3d 806 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “In this consolidated appeal, mother and father (parents) appeal the juvenile court’s denial of their motions under ORS 419B.923 to set aside a judgment terminating their parental rights to their three children.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. P. W. (In re Z. S. H.), 439 P.3d 1042 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
Dept. of Human Servs. v. T. L. (Or. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.923(3) — 13 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. M. R. (In re A. R. L. U.), 437 P.3d 1233 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “*1234 *50 Mother appeals an order denying her motion under ORS 419B.923 to set aside a judgment terminating her parental rights to her daughter A.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. B. A. S., 221 P.3d 806 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “In this consolidated appeal, mother and father (parents) appeal the juvenile court’s denial of their motions under ORS 419B.923 to set aside a judgment terminating their parental rights to their three children.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016). “Father did not say anything about the absence of his attorney at the hearing; nor did he indicate to the court that he was opposed to the changes in the permanent plans. On September 6, 2013, the court entered permanency judgments consistent with its decision at the hearing.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. K. H. H., 466 P.3d 698 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “The Department of Human Services argues that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying father’s motion on that basis.”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. D. J., 168 P.3d 798 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.923(7) — 10 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016). “Father did not say anything about the absence of his attorney at the hearing; nor did he indicate to the court that he was opposed to the changes in the permanent plans. On September 6, 2013, the court entered permanency judgments consistent with its decision at the hearing.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 344 P.3d 1123 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “ORS 419B.923 provides a trial-level mechanism to set aside judgments in dependency cases, and, because that remedy is available to challenge the adequacy of dependency counsel, Geist is inapplicable.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. D. G., 317 P.3d 950 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “” Mother also argued that, if the juvenile court “determines that it is not within its inherent authority to set aside a void judgment,” the court should nonetheless set aside the judgment pursuant to ORS 419B.923(1), arguing that “the court’s lack of authority to terminate a…”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. A., 205 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
Dep't of Human Servs. v. B. A. S., 221 P.3d 806 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “In this consolidated appeal, mother and father (parents) appeal the juvenile court’s denial of their motions under ORS 419B.923 to set aside a judgment terminating their parental rights to their three children.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.923(8) — 11 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. D. G., 317 P.3d 950 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “” Mother also argued that, if the juvenile court “determines that it is not within its inherent authority to set aside a void judgment,” the court should nonetheless set aside the judgment pursuant to ORS 419B.923(1), arguing that “the court’s lack of authority to terminate a…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016). “Father did not say anything about the absence of his attorney at the hearing; nor did he indicate to the court that he was opposed to the changes in the permanent plans. On September 6, 2013, the court entered permanency judgments consistent with its decision at the hearing.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. M. R. (In re A. R. L. U.), 437 P.3d 1233 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “*1234 *50 Mother appeals an order denying her motion under ORS 419B.923 to set aside a judgment terminating her parental rights to her daughter A.”
State v. N. L., 239 P.3d 255 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “” She contended that the juvenile court had “the authority to correct an error or mistake at any time under ORS 419B.923, even during the pendency of an appeal.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. B. A. S., 221 P.3d 806 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “In this consolidated appeal, mother and father (parents) appeal the juvenile court’s denial of their motions under ORS 419B.923 to set aside a judgment terminating their parental rights to their three children.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.923(l)(a) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. S., 200 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. J. M., 301 P.3d 962 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.923(l)(b) — 4 cases
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. G. R., 197 P.3d 61 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “5 ORS 419B.923 provides, in part: “(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, on motion and such notice and hearing as the court may direct, the court may modify or set aside any order or judgment made by it.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. K. M. P., 284 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “, we highlighted the legislative history of ORS 419B.923(1), specifically the provision regarding “excusable neglect”: “[T]the legislative history of ORS 419B.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. M. B., 369 P.3d 419 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. S., 200 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.923(l)(c) — 1 case
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. S., 200 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.