Shannon v. Shannon

Decision Date23 January 1952
PartiesSHANNON v. SHANNON.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Austin Dunn, of Baker, for the petition.

Ryan & Pelay, of Portland, contra.

BRAND, Chief Justice.

The appellant seeks a rehearing upon the ground that 'the opinion of the Court makes no reference whatever to Oregon Laws 1947, Chapter 572, upon which Appellant relied as authority * * *.' The statute to which appellant refers reads as follows: 'No order or decree for the future payment of money in gross or in instalments, entered under the provisions of section 9-914, O.C.L.A., and acts amendatory or supplementary thereof, shall continue to be a lien on real property for a period of more than 10 years from and after the date of such order and decree unless the same shall have been renewed as provided by section 6-802, O.C.L.A., as amended by section 1, chapter 274, Oregon Laws 1943.' Oregon Laws, 1947, Ch. 572. The appellant is correct. We made no reference to the 1947 statute because its provisions have no relevancy to the pending case. The 1947 act expressly refers to orders or decrees in gross or in instalments entered under the provisions of O.C.L.A., § 9-914. Inspection of that section, as amended by chapter 228 of the Laws of 1947, shows that it relates to the powers of courts in suits for the dissolution or annulment of the marriage contract. It refers, and could refers only, to the powers vested in divorce courts of the state of Oregon. It has no bearing and declares no public policy of this state with reference to the effect of divorce decrees rendered in sister states. There is another reason why the 1947 act has no bearing upon the case at bar. It provides that Oregon divorce decrees for the payment of money in instalments shall not continue to be a lien for more than ten years after the date of the decree 'unless the same shall have been renewed as provided by section 6-802, O.C.L.A., as amended by section 1, chapter 274, Oregon Laws 1943.' The case at bar presents no issue concerning the renewal of any judgment or decree. This suit was not brought to renew any decree. The Washington decree of divorce required no renewal in Washington in order to support a judgment for the instalments which had accrued within the six years immediately preceding the commencement of the suit and it had no effect whatever in Oregon until it was given effect by judicial decree in this state.

An Oregon statute provides in part that: 'The effect of a judicial record of a sister state is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Picker v. Vollenhover
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • October 6, 1955
    ...167 Or. 25, 32, 114 P.2d 147. See also, Cogswell v. Cogswell, 178 Or. 417, 167 P.2d 324; Shannon v. Shannon, 193 Or. 575, 238 P.2d 744, 239 P.2d 993; Restatement of the Law, Conflicts of Laws, § 434, and comment thereon, §§ 435, 437, 438. We quote further from the 'A valid foreign judgment ......
  • Newhouse v. Newhouse
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1975
    ...manner as child support payments become a judgment in Oregon. We quote from Shannon v. Shannon, 193 Or. 575, 580, 238 P.2d 744, 746, 239 P.2d 993 (1952), as '* * * The Oregon decisions have with equal clarity established the rule that each installment which comes due under a decree for the ......
  • Roberts v. Roberts
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • December 1, 1966
    ...744, 157 P.2d 981 (1945); Boudwin v. Boudwin, 159 Wash. 262, 292 P. 1017 (1930); Shannon v. Shannon, 193 Or. 575, 238 P.2d 744, 239 P.2d 993 (1952). In this case, all installments of support money which had accrued within the 6-year statute of limitations had been paid, and the trial court ......
  • Ames v. Ames
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • October 27, 1982
    ...due installments of support bear interest as to each installment as it falls due. Shannon v. Shannon, 193 Or. 575, 581, 238 P.2d 744, 239 P.2d 993 (1952); see Melvin v. Melvin, 391 So.2d 691, 692 (Fla. 1st DCA Because of our disposition of the issues considered above, we need not consider d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT