Summary
allowing modification, in RURESA proceeding, of foreign support order as to future payments made within responding state
Summary of this case from Tavares and TavaresOpinion
Appellant's Petition for Reconsideration May 2, 1979. James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., Walter L. Barrie, Sol. Gen., and Al J. Laue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, for petition.
No appearance contra.
RICHARDSON, Judge.
The state petitioned for reconsideration of our decision reported in 39 Or.App. 325, 591 P.2d 1196 (1979). The state contends that under the Oregon statutes, based upon the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), the Oregon courts cannot modify a support order of another state. The contention is based on ORS 110.271:
"Any order of support issued by a court of this state when acting as a responding state shall not supersede any previous order of support issued in a divorce, separate maintenance or any other proceedings, but the amounts for a particular period paid pursuant to either order shall be credited against amounts accruing or accrued for the same period under any such other proceedings."
In State ex rel. Nebraska v. Brooks, 35 Or.App. 805, 583 P.2d 12 (1978), Rev. den. (1979), we briefly reviewed authorities from other jurisdictions construing URESA and concluded a responding state had authority to modify a foreign order of support as to future payments made in the responding state. In this case father petitioned for modification of his support obligation as to the amount of future payments he is required to make in Oregon. The court's order modifying the California decree related only to future support and did not effect the payments which had accrued prior to the order of modification. We held only that the courts had jurisdiction of the matter and had authority to modify the decree as to future payments. With this clarification we adhere to our former opinion affirming the order of the trial court.
Reconsideration denied. Former opinion adhered to.