Sorenson v. Baker

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Sorenson v. Baker

986 P.2d 665, 162 Or. App. 564, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 1583

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 15, 1999

Docket95-1406; CA A103545

StatusPublished

This text of 986 P.2d 665 (Sorenson v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sorenson v. Baker, 986 P.2d 665, 162 Or. App. 564, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 1583 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLLHEIM, J.

The State of Oregon Department of Human Resources seeks review of the trial court’s sua sponte modification of respondent’s child support obligations in a proceeding for remedial contempt of court for nonpayment of child support. We reverse and remand for resolution of the civil contempt of court proceedings under ORS 33.015 through ORS 33.135.

The state sought a civil contempt of court judgment against respondent for allegedly wilfully failing to pay child support pursuant to a 1995 support order. That order required respondent to pay $163 per month and was later modified to $234 per month. The state alleged that respondent was $6,242 in arrears under that order. The trial court did not decide the contempt issue but, instead, elected to modify the support order, holding that respondent was $2,000 in arrears and requiring respondent to pay $25 a month in support and $25 a month toward the arrearage until satisfied. The state objected to such modification, arguing that respondent had not filed a motion to modify the order as required under ORS 416.425, ORS 107.135(6), or ORS 107.431.

It is not clear under which statute the trial court modified the support order,¹ but it is clear that all of the statutory provisions relevant to this case prohibit the trial court from modifying support on its own motion. Each of those statutes explicitly requires a party to file a motion for modification and notify the other parties. No such motion was before the trial court here, and modification was ordered over the objection of the state. We therefore must, as a matter of law, reverse the trial court’s judgment directing modification of the support order. We remand for resolution of the civil remedial contempt proceeding.

Reversed and remanded.

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

WOLLHEIM, J.

The State of Oregon Department of Human Resources seeks review of the trial court’s sua sponte modification of respondent’s child support obligations in a proceeding for remedial contempt of court for nonpayment of child support. We reverse and remand for resolution of the civil contempt of court proceedings under ORS 33.015 through ORS 33.135.

The state sought a civil contempt of court judgment against respondent for allegedly wilfully failing to pay child support pursuant to a 1995 support order. That order required respondent to pay $163 per month and was later modified to $234 per month. The state alleged that respondent was $6,242 in arrears under that order. The trial court did not decide the contempt issue but, instead, elected to modify the support order, holding that respondent was $2,000 in arrears and requiring respondent to pay $25 a month in support and $25 a month toward the arrearage until satisfied. The state objected to such modification, arguing that respondent had not filed a motion to modify the order as required under ORS 416.425, ORS 107.135(6), or ORS 107.431.

It is not clear under which statute the trial court modified the support order,¹ but it is clear that all of the statutory provisions relevant to this case prohibit the trial court from modifying support on its own motion. Each of those statutes explicitly requires a party to file a motion for modification and notify the other parties. No such motion was before the trial court here, and modification was ordered over the objection of the state. We therefore must, as a matter of law, reverse the trial court’s judgment directing modification of the support order. We remand for resolution of the civil remedial contempt proceeding.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

986 P.2d 665, 162 Or. App. 564, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 1583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sorenson-v-baker-orctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack