State ex rel. Martinovich v. Denny

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State ex rel. Martinovich v. Denny

569 P.2d 710, 31 Or. App. 119, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1894

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 4, 1977

DocketNo. 38267, CA 7923

StatusPublished

This text of 569 P.2d 710 (State ex rel. Martinovich v. Denny) 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. Martinovich v. Denny, 569 P.2d 710, 31 Or. App. 119, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1894 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In 1967 an Arizona court granted custody of the parties’ four children to their father. Later, two of the children left his home in Oregon without his consent and went to live with their mother in California. In 1972 a proceeding under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (ORS ch 110) resulted in a stipulated order requiring defendant to pay child support for those children. In 1976 defendant moved to set aside that order on the ground that the court "was without jurisdiction of the subject matter of the proceeding” in 1972. Defendant appeals from a denial of that motion.

Under the relevant statutory provisions,¹ the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the subject matter of the 1972 proceeding. Defendant’s reliance on Haight v. Haight, 241 Or 532, 405 P2d 622 (1965), is inappropriate. That case does relate to whether defendant had a duty of support in the circumstances, but it has nothing to do with jurisdiction.

Affirmed; costs to respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

In 1967 an Arizona court granted custody of the parties’ four children to their father. Later, two of the children left his home in Oregon without his consent and went to live with their mother in California. In 1972 a proceeding under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (ORS ch 110) resulted in a stipulated order requiring defendant to pay child support for those children. In 1976 defendant moved to set aside that order on the ground that the court "was without jurisdiction of the subject matter of the proceeding” in 1972. Defendant appeals from a denial of that motion.

Under the relevant statutory provisions,¹ the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the subject matter of the 1972 proceeding. Defendant’s reliance on Haight v. Haight, 241 Or 532, 405 P2d 622 (1965), is inappropriate. That case does relate to whether defendant had a duty of support in the circumstances, but it has nothing to do with jurisdiction.

Affirmed; costs to respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

569 P.2d 710, 31 Or. App. 119, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-martinovich-v-denny-orctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack