From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex rel La. v. Phillips

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 11, 1979
40 Or. App. 547 (Or. Ct. App. 1979)

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 Tavares

Opinion


595 P.2d 1276 (Or.App. 1979) 40 Or.App. 547 STATE of Oregon ex rel. State of LOUISIANA and Geraldine McNamee, Appellant, v. Joe Paul PHILLIPS, Respondent. No. REC 77-11-15804; CA 12179. Court of Appeals of Oregon, In Banc. June 11, 1979

       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.


Summaries of

State ex rel La. v. Phillips

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 11, 1979
40 Or. App. 547 (Or. Ct. App. 1979)

allowing modification, in RURESA proceeding, of foreign support order as to future payments made within responding state

Summary of this case from Tavares and Tavares
Case details for

State ex rel La. v. Phillips

Case Details

Full title:STATE ex rel STATE OF LOUISIANA, McNAMEE, Appellant v. PHILLIPS, Respondent

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 11, 1979

Citations

40 Or. App. 547 (Or. Ct. App. 1979)
40 Or. App. 547
591 P.2d 1196

Citing Cases

State v. Tuthill

In State ex rel Louisiana v. Phillips, 39 Or. App. 325, 591 P.2d 1196, on recons 40 Or. App. 547, 591 P.2d…

White-Nathan v. Nathan

The second is when the obligor affirmatively requests the responding court, under RURESA section 31, to…