Poe v. Poe

425 P.2d 767, 246 Or. 458, 1967 Ore. LEXIS 600
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 29, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 425 P.2d 767 (Poe v. Poe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Poe v. Poe, 425 P.2d 767, 246 Or. 458, 1967 Ore. LEXIS 600 (Or. 1967).

Opinion

SLOAN, J.

In February 1950, plaintiff obtained a divorce from defendant. The decree required him to pay $15 per month as child support for each of two children. In 1952, he quit paying the child support payments. In January 1966, defendant filed a motion for a judgment in her favor for the unpaid support payments. The court allowed the motion and entered a judgment accordingly. Plaintiff then filed a motion to set aside the judgment with the claim that he quit making the payments at defendant’s request, that defendant has not made an effort since 1952 to collect the support money and that she now be estopped to claim it. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the judgment. Plaintiff appeals.

OBS 107.180 (2) provides:

“The decree is a final judgment as to any instalment or payment of money which has accrued up to the time either party makes a motion to set aside, alter or modify the decree, and the court does not have the power to set aside, alter or modify such decree, or any portion thereof, which provides for any payment of money, either for the nurture or education of minor children or the maintenance of either party to the suit, which has accrued prior to the filing of such motion.”

This court has repeatedly held, since the finality of the installment judgment was added to the statute in 1921 (Oregon Laws 1921, ch 114, p 225), that the court is without power to modify or change support money payments once they have become a judgment. *460 Shelley v. Shelley, 1955, 204 Or 436, 283 P2d 663, reviewed the previous eases and confirmed that the statute does not permit the court to alter the prior installment judgment.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kim and Kinnersley
337 Or. App. 503 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2025)
In Re Marriage of Comer
927 P.2d 265 (California Supreme Court, 1996)
Starzinger v. Starzinger
727 P.2d 168 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1986)
Ellis v. Ellis
640 P.2d 1024 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1982)
Matter of Marriage of Eagen
640 P.2d 1019 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1982)
In re the Marriage of Eagen
628 P.2d 428 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
In re the Marriage of Alspaugh
605 P.2d 1386 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1980)
State Ex Rel. Cox v. Cox
570 P.2d 988 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1977)
Miller v. Miller
565 P.2d 382 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1977)
Baures v. Baures
478 P.2d 130 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
425 P.2d 767, 246 Or. 458, 1967 Ore. LEXIS 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poe-v-poe-or-1967.