For courts to enforce the terms of settlements described in subsection (2) of this section to the fullest extent possible, except when to do so would violate the law or would clearly contravene public policy.
In a suit for marital annulment, dissolution or separation, the court may enforce the terms set forth in a stipulated judgment signed by the parties, a judgment resulting from a settlement on the record or a judgment incorporating a marital settlement agreement:
A party may seek to enforce an agreement and obtain remedies described in subsection (2) of this section by filing a motion, serving notice on the other party in the manner provided by ORCP 7 and, if a remedy under subsection (2)(b) of this section is sought, complying with the statutory requirements for that remedy. All claims for relief arising out of the same acts or omissions must be joined in the same proceeding.
Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) of this section limits a party’s ability, in a separate proceeding, to file a motion to set aside, alter or modify a judgment under ORS 107.135 (Vacation or modification of judgment) or to seek enforcement of an ancillary agreement to the judgment. [2001 c.203 §2; 2003 c.576 §108]
Source: Section 107.104 — Policy regarding settlement; enforcement of settlement terms; remedies, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors107.html .
Characterization of amount as spousal support in marital settlement agreement incorporated in dissolution judgment is not binding on bankruptcy court. In re Jennings, 306 B.R. 672 (Bkrtcy. D. Or. 2004)
Court-approved marital settlement agreement that waives right of party to seek modification does not contravene public policy or impermissibly interfere with court jurisdiction under ORS 107.135. McInnis and McInnis, 199 Or App 223, 110 P3d 639 (2005)
Where settlement agreement does not violate law or clearly contravene public policy, agreement supersedes authority of court under ORS 107.105 to determine just and proper disposition of marital property. Patterson and Kanaga, 206 Or App 341, 136 P3d 1177 (2006)
Limitation on court’s authority to award support in first instance does not establish that agreement providing for greater support violates law or contravenes public policy. Reeves and Elliott, 237 Or App 126, 238 P3d 427 (2010)
Definition in agreement in stipulated judgment that varies from statutory definition does not establish that settlement violates law or contravenes public policy. Reeves and Elliott, 237 Or App 126, 238 P3d 427 (2010)
ORS 107.135 authorizes awarding attorney fees to party seeking enforcement of stipulated terms of original dissolution judgment under this section where enforcement efforts are reasonably and materially related to resolution of modification under ORS 107.135. Berry and Huffman, 247 Or App 651, 271 P3d 128 (2012); Baertlein and Stocks, 303 Or App 51, 464 P3d 433 (2020)
Although section allows court to impose remedies in general, it does not specifically authorize award of attorney fees or state that attorney fee award is available remedy, and does not itself create a right to fees. Berry and Huffman, 251 Or App 744, 284 P3d 1202 (2012)
Policy encouraging settlement does not limit court’s ability to modify terms of stipulated dissolution judgment only in those circumstances when terms of judgment violate law or clearly contravene public policy. Dow and Dow, 256 Or App 454, 302 P3d 1188 (2013)