Legal Opinion

In Re the Marriage of Pollock

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 2015No. CC D008-0256; CA A147846; SC S062000PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, J.

The issue in this case is whether discovery of the parties’ assets must be provided in a marital dissolution action after the parties have entered into a settlement agreement but before the trial court has ruled on a contested motion to enforce the agreement. As explained below, we conclude that the trial court in this case did not satisfy its duty under ORS 107.105(l)(f)(F) to ensure that the parties had fully disclosed their assets before it decided husband’s motion to enforce a mediated agreement and entered a judgment of dissolution based on that decision. Accordingly, we reverse the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. In Re Marriage of KunzeOregon Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Prime v. PrimeOregon Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Matter of Marriage of McDonnalOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Matter of Marriage of EngleOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  5. In Re MurphyOhio Court of Appeals · 1983

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In re the Marriage of HaggertyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  2. Anderson and AbbettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025
  3. Anderson and AbbettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025
  4. Barzilay and BarzilayCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2023
  5. Pollock and PollockOregon Supreme Court · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API