656.234
Compensation not assignable nor to pass by operation of law; certain benefits
subject to support obligations.
(1) No moneys payable under this chapter on account of injuries or death are
subject to assignment prior to their receipt by the beneficiary entitled
thereto, nor shall they pass by operation of law. All such moneys and the right
to receive them are exempt from seizure on execution, attachment or
garnishment, or by the process of any court.
(2)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section:
(a) Moneys
payable under ORS 656.210 and 656.212 are subject to an order to enforce child
support obligations, and spousal support when there is a current support
obligation for a joint child of the obligated parent and the person to whom
spousal support is owed, under ORS 25.378; and
(b) Moneys
payable under ORS 656.206, 656.214, 656.236 and 656.289 (4) are subject to an
order to enforce child support obligations under ORS 25.378.
(3)
Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 25.378 and 25.414, the amount of child
support obligation subject to enforcement may not exceed:
(a) One-fourth of
moneys paid under ORS 656.210 and 656.212 or the amount of the current support
to be paid as continuing support, whichever is less, or, if there is no current
support obligation and the withholding is for arrearages only, 15 percent of
the moneys paid under ORS 656.210 and 656.212 or the amount previously paid as
current support, whichever is less;
(b) One-half of
moneys paid in a lump sum award under ORS 656.210 and 656.212 when the award
becomes final by operation of law or waiver of the right to appeal its
adequacy;
(c) One-half of
moneys paid under ORS 656.206, 656.214 and 656.236; or
(d) One-half of
the net proceeds paid to the worker in a disputed claim settlement under ORS
656.289 (4).
(4)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, when withholding is only
for arrearages assigned to this or another state, the Department of Justice may
set a lesser amount to be withheld if the obligor demonstrates the withholding
is prejudicial to the obligor’s ability to provide for a child the obligor has
a duty to support. [Amended by 1967 c.468 §1; 1989 c.520 §2; 1991 c.758 §3;
1993 c.48 §1; 1993 c.798 §22; 1995 c.272 §2; 2001 c.455 §26; 2003 c.73 §70;
2011 c.317 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Satterfield v. Satterfield, 643 P.2d 336 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 5× “The circuit court dismissed the garnishment on the basis of ORS 656.234. The Court of Appeals, in banc, citing its earlier decision in Calvin v.”
Calvin v. Calvin, 487 P.2d 1164 (Or. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 10× “03 of the larger amount originally awarded, but alleged that the money was workmen's compensation benefits and exempt from execution under ORS 656.234, which provides that such benefits "are exempt from seizure on execution, attachment or garnishment, or by the process of any…”
Hughes v. State of Oregon, 838 P.2d 1018 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 2× “207 (benefits payable by fraternal benefit societies exempt from attachment, garnishment, or other process). Although such exemptions, like the exemption for PERS benefits, have economic value to the beneficiaries, that fact does not make them contractual.”
McCabe v. Fee, 568 P.2d 661 (Or. 1977).
· cites it 3× “ORS 656.234 provides: "No moneys payable under ORS 656.”
Satterfield v. Satterfield, 634 P.2d 787 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 5× “Wausau argues that Calvin is no longer controlling because ORS 656.210 has since been amended to provide that in determining the rate or amount of temporary total disability benefits payable to an injured worker the number of dependents are no longer taken into account; that the…”
Waldman v. Nolen (In Re Nolen), 65 B.R. 1014 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1986).
“” Or.Rev.Stat. § 656.234. In other words, the court noted that the word "paid" was deleted from the second sentence of the statute in 1933, but failed to point out that the phrase “prior to receipt" was also deleted from the same sentence in a later amendment.”
Gerold v. Gerold, 488 P.2d 294 (Or. Ct. App. 1971).
“Calvin, 6 Or App 572 , 487 P2d 1164 , 489 P2d 403 (1971), this court discussed at length a similar question and held that payments made pursuant to the Oregon Workmen’s Compensation Act were not under ORS 656.234 exempt from garnishment for child support and alimony.”
Comp. of Sandstrum v. State Accident Ins. Fund, 613 P.2d 96 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Calvin, 6 Or App 572 , 487 P2d 1164 (1971), in which the court held that ORS 656.234, exempting workers’ compensation benefits from all garnishments, did not exempt benefits payable to claimant from garnishment to pay claimant’s support arrearages; and a January 24, 1978,…”
Phillip Charles Leavell (Bankr. D. Or. 2025).
· cites it 2× “515 (black lung); ORS 656.234(1) (workers’ compensation). 18 Chapter 100, 2024 Laws.”
Saif Corp. v. O'neal, 895 P.2d 350 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“Finally, SAIF also argues that the Board’s order requiring it to recover the amount of the attorney fees paid from claimant’s future permanent disability awards violates ORS 656.234(1), because it illegally assigns a claimant’s future benefits.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.234(1) — 2 cases
Phillip Charles Leavell (Bankr. D. Or. 2025).
“515 (black lung); ORS 656.234(1) (workers’ compensation). 18 Chapter 100, 2024 Laws.”
Saif Corp. v. O'neal, 895 P.2d 350 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“Finally, SAIF also argues that the Board’s order requiring it to recover the amount of the attorney fees paid from claimant’s future permanent disability awards violates ORS 656.234(1), because it illegally assigns a claimant’s future benefits.”
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.