2015 ORS 33.135¹
Limitations of actions

(1) Except as provided in subsection (5) of this section, proceedings under ORS 33.055 (Procedure for imposition of remedial sanctions) to impose remedial sanctions for contempt and under ORS 33.065 (Procedure for imposition of punitive sanctions) to impose punitive sanctions for contempt shall be commenced within two years of the act or omission constituting the contempt.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a proceeding to impose remedial sanctions shall be deemed commenced as to each defendant when the motion provided for in ORS 33.055 (Procedure for imposition of remedial sanctions) is filed.

(3) Proceedings to impose punitive sanctions are subject to ORS 131.135 (When prosecution commenced), 131.145 (When time starts to run) and 131.155 (Tolling of statute).

(4) The time limitations imposed by subsection (1) of this section shall not act to bar proceedings to impose sanctions for an act or omission that constitutes a continuing contempt at the time contempt proceedings are commenced. The willful failure of an obligor, as that term is defined in ORS 110.503 (Definitions), to pay a support obligation after that obligation becomes a judgment is a contempt without regard to when the obligation became a judgment.

(5) Proceedings to impose remedial or punitive sanctions for failure to pay a support obligation by an obligor, as defined in ORS 110.503 (Definitions), shall be commenced within 10 years of the act or omission constituting contempt. [1991 c.724 §12; 2005 c.560 §15; 2015 c.298 §88]

Notes of Decisions

Contempt pro­ceed­ing instituted under these sec­tions for husbands failure to pay spousal support pursuant to dissolu­tion decree is separate pro­ceed­ing from dissolu­tion and trial courts jurisdic­tion to hold husband in contempt was therefore not defeated by husbands ap­peal from dissolu­tion decree. Oliver and Oliver, 81 Or App 115, 724 P2d 869 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Choice-of-evils de­fense could not exonerate defendants charged with contempt for violating injunc­tion arising from demonstra­tion to prevent abor­tions because de­fense is available only if defendants necessary con­duct is not inconsistent with other pro­vi­sions of law. Downtown Womens Center v. Advocates for Life, Inc., 111 Or App 317, 826 P2d 637 (1992)

Contempt pro­ceed­ings are not subject to laws governing venue for crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings. Bachman v. Bachman, 171 Or App 665, 16 P3d 1185 (2000), Sup Ct review denied


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 33—Special Proceedings and Procedures, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors033.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 33, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano033.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.