Sheil and Sheil 286 Or App 34 (2017)

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Family Law
  • Date Filed: 06-07-2017
  • Case #: A157377
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J. for the Court; Tookey, J.; DeHoog, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

An agreement to waive the right to seek modification of spousal support is enforceable if it does not violate public policy. McInnis and McInnis, 199 Or. App. 223, 110 P.3d 639 (2005), rev dismissed, 338 Or. 681 (2005).

Wife appealed from a supplemental judgment of the trial court modifying the parties’ stipulated judgment of dissolution to terminate spousal support. Wife assigned error to the trial court’s determination that the stipulated judgment’s provisions were unenforceable because they interfered with husband’s statutory right to request modification. Wife argued that Husband waive his right to seek modification by previously stipulation that spousal support was nonmodifiable. Husband argued that the stipulation is unenforceable because it invades the court’s authority to alter a dissolution judgment. An agreement to waive the right to seek modification of spousal support is enforceable as long as it does not violate public policy. McInnis and McInnis, 199 Or. App. 223, 110 P.3d 639 (2005), rev dismissed, 338 Or. 681 (2005). The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in terminating spousal support because the parties agreed that the spousal support award was nonmodifiable which does not violate public policy. In rejecting Husband’s argument, the court noted that the parties’ agreement did not infringe on the court’s authority – it only provided that the parties waived the right to ask the court to modify the award. Reversed.

 

Advanced Search