300 P.3d 144
Or.2013Background
- In 2005, parties entered a dissolution decree with joint custody, mother primary physical custody, father with parenting time, and child support of $1,750/month exceeding the presumptively correct amount by $8.
- The decree included a nonmodification clause: neither party would seek modification of child support due to income changes or other circumstances, and the agreement stated support would continue until the children reach 21.
- In 2009, father alleged a substantial drop in income from $7,300 to $6,200 and sought modification, prompting mother to argue waiver of modification barred modification.
- Trial court found substantial change in circumstances but enforced the nonmodification clause, and dismissed father’s modification motion; Court of Appeals affirmed.
- This court holds that ORS 107.104 and ORS 107.135(15) authorize enforcement of such settlement terms unless enforcement would violate the law or clearly contravene public policy; nonmodification clauses are enforceable on a case-by-case basis.
- Ongoing framework: child support obligations arise under statutory scheme; modification rights exist but can be waived unless public policy or law is violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do ORS 107.104 and 107.135(15) apply to child support terms in marital settlements? | Waiver of modification conflicts with child support statutes. | Statutes authorize enforcement of terms, including child support provisions, unless public policy or law is violated. | Yes; statutes apply to child support terms and permit enforcement with case-specific public policy review. |
| Does a nonmodification clause for child support violate public policy? | Nonmodification clauses contravene public policy by blocking court adjustment per changing circumstances. | Waiver does not automatically violate policy; courts examine circumstances to ensure policy compliance. | Not per se; enforcement allowed unless it contravenes law or clearly contravenes public policy. |
| Can substantial change in circumstances justify modifying when a nonmodification clause exists? | Substantial change should allow modification to align with Child Support Formula. | Waiver can be enforced; modification possible only if enforcement would violate policy or law. | Modification possible under policy/law review; in this case, nonmodification was enforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnal v. McDonnal, 293 Or 772 (Or. 1982) (private settlement agreements may be enforced; court retains power to modify if needed to satisfy statutory authority)
- McInnis v. McInnis, 199 Or App 223 (Or. App. 2005) (waiver of modification rights analyzed in spousal context; not effect on court authority)
- Hess v. Hess, 115 Or 595 (Or. 1925) (child support obligation is statutory; cannot be shirked by contract)
- Gibbons v. Gibbons, 75 Or 500 (Or. 1915) (public policy and child's welfare underlie support obligations)
- Jackman v. Short, 165 Or 626 (Or. 1941) (parents cannot contract away child's right to support)
- Webber v. Olsen, 330 Or 189 (Or. 2000) (court declined to enforce contract in dissolution context prior to statutory reform)