ORS 107.104¹
Policy regarding settlement
  • enforcement of settlement terms
  • remedies

(1) It is the policy of this state:

(a) To encourage the settlement of suits for marital annulment, dissolution or separation; and

(b) For courts to enforce the terms of settlements described in subsection (2) of this section to the fullest extent possible, except when to do so would violate the law or would clearly contravene public policy.

(2) In a suit for marital annulment, dissolution or separation, the court may enforce the terms set forth in a stipulated judgment signed by the parties, a judgment resulting from a settlement on the record or a judgment incorporating a marital settlement agreement:

(a) As contract terms using contract remedies;

(b) By imposing any remedy available to enforce a judgment, including but not limited to contempt; or

(c) By any combination of the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection.

(3) A party may seek to enforce an agreement and obtain remedies described in subsection (2) of this section by filing a motion, serving notice on the other party in the manner provided by ORCP 7 and, if a remedy under subsection (2)(b) of this section is sought, complying with the statutory requirements for that remedy. All claims for relief arising out of the same acts or omissions must be joined in the same proceeding.

(4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) of this section limits a party’s ability, in a separate proceeding, to file a motion to set aside, alter or modify a judgment under ORS 107.135 (Vacation or modification of judgment) or to seek enforcement of an ancillary agreement to the judgment. [2001 c.203 §2; 2003 c.576 §108]

Notes of Decisions

Characteriza­tion of amount as spousal support in marital settle­ment agree­ment incorporated in dissolu­tion judg­ment is not binding on bankruptcy court. In re Jennings, 306 B.R. 672 (Bkrtcy. D. Or. 2004)

Court-approved marital settle­ment agree­ment that waives right of party to seek modifica­tion does not contravene public policy or impermissibly interfere with court jurisdic­tion under ORS 107.135 (Vacation or modification of judgment). McInnis and McInnis, 199 Or App 223, 110 P3d 639 (2005)

Where settle­ment agree­ment does not violate law or clearly contravene public policy, agree­ment supersedes authority of court under ORS 107.105 (Provisions of judgment) to determine just and proper disposi­tion of marital prop­erty. Patterson and Kanaga, 206 Or App 341, 136 P3d 1177 (2006)

Limita­tion on court’s authority to award support in first instance does not es­tab­lish that agree­ment providing for greater support violates law or contravenes public policy. Reeves and Elliott, 237 Or App 126, 238 P3d 427 (2010)

Defini­tion in agree­ment in stipulated judg­ment that varies from statutory defini­tion does not es­tab­lish that settle­ment violates law or contravenes public policy. Reeves and Elliott, 237 Or App 126, 238 P3d 427 (2010)

ORS 107.135 (Vacation or modification of judgment) authorizes awarding attorney fees to party seeking en­force­­ment of stipulated terms of original dissolu­tion judg­ment under this sec­tion where en­force­­ment efforts are reasonably and ma­te­ri­ally related to resolu­tion of modifica­tion under ORS 107.135 (Vacation or modification of judgment). Berry and Huffman, 247 Or App 651, 271 P3d 128 (2012)

Although sec­tion allows court to impose remedies in general, it does not speci fically authorize award of attorney fees or state that attorney fee award is available remedy, and does not itself create a right to fees. Berry and Huffman, 251 Or App 744, 284 P3d 1202 (2012)

Policy encouraging settle­ment does not limit court’s ability to modify terms of stipulated dissolu­tion judg­ment only in those circumstances when terms of judg­ment violate law or clearly contravene public policy. Dow and Dow, 256 Or App 454, 302 P3d 1188 (2013)

Law Review Cita­tions

43 WLR 421 (2007)

Chapter 107

Notes of Decisions

Trial court has authority to es­tab­lish liquidated sum as amount owed by spouse under settle­ment agree­ment. Horner and Horner, 119 Or App 112, 849 P2d 560 (1993)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Emergency or necessity as the only grounds for waiver of 90-day period, (1971) Vol 35, p 982

Law Review Cita­tions

55 OLR 267-277 (1976); 27 WLR 51 (1991)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 107—Marital Dissolution, Annulment and Separation; Mediation and Conciliation Services; Family Abuse Prevention, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors107.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 107, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano107.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information