State ex rel. Greenlee v. Groat

619 P.2d 667, 49 Or. App. 257, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 3702
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedNovember 17, 1980
DocketNo. 41407, CA 17784
StatusPublished

This text of 619 P.2d 667 (State ex rel. Greenlee v. Groat) 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
State ex rel. Greenlee v. Groat, 619 P.2d 667, 49 Or. App. 257, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 3702 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

JOSEPH, P. J.

The state filed a petition for support pursuant to the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Support Act (ORS 110.005 et seq.) requesting enforcement of a support order and a judgment for accrued arrearages. The trial court denied the relief sought and dismissed the petition.

Petitioner and respondent were married in November, 1973, and in the same month they filed a "co-petition” for dissolution of the marriage in Colorado. Before the hearing on the petition, petitioner discovered that she was pregnant and filed an amended co-petition to include a request for child support. A hearing was held in May, 1974. Petitioner and respondent were present at the hearing, and respondent admitted paternity. He agreed that $75 per month would be a reasonable sum for child support. An "amended decree” was entered fixing the support at that amount "commencing when child bom.”1 During the time respondent was in the army $75 per month was withheld from his paycheck and, apparently, paid to petitioner as child support. After his discharge in October, 1978, petitioner made no further child support payments.

Nothing in the record before us gives a clue to why the trial court denied relief and dismissed the petition. Nothing in the respondent’s brief offers any sensible reason either. As best we can determine respondent would have us hold that the Colorado decree was void under the law of that state because a Colorado court did not have jurisdiction to award support for a child not yet bom. No authority for that proposition is cited. Respondent also appears to argue that because the co-petitioners in Colorado sought a dissolution of marriage and received a decree of legal separation, the decree issued was void. No support is offered for that proposition either. We reverse and remand the case for further proceedings under the uniform act.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

§ 110.005
Oregon § 110.005

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
619 P.2d 667, 49 Or. App. 257, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 3702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-greenlee-v-groat-orctapp-1980.