Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Montgomery v. Ledesma

March 12, 1973

MONTGOMERY, APPELLANT,
v.
LEDESMA, RESPONDENT



Appeal from Circuit Court, Klamath County. Donald A. W. Piper, Judge.

Glenn D. Ramirez, Klamath Falls, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Ramirez & Hoots, Klamath Falls.

Enver Bozgoz, Klamath Falls, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Schwab, Chief Judge, and Foley and Thornton, Judges.

Schwab

This appeal presents the question of whether the court has jurisdiction to modify a child support agreement entered into by unmarried parents. We hold that it does not.

This suit arose on plaintiff's second amended complaint filed in 1972, the original complaint having been filed in December of 1971. It alleges: (1) that the plaintiff and defendant, who were never married to each other, are the natural parents of two children, aged 11 and 12; (2) that the parties had previously entered into an agreement in which the defendant agreed to pay $35 per month for the support of each child; and (3) that this amount was insufficient and should be raised to $75 per month per child. The complaint then prayed for an order modifying the agreement accordingly.

The complaint did not have a copy of the agreement attached, and neither party was able to produce either the original or a copy at the trial. However, both parties admitted that there was such an agreement and neither testified that the agreement contained any provisions for modification. Paternity was not admitted in the agreement, but was acknowledged by defendant in separate documents. The parties agree that the agreement was not pursuant to any court proceedings.

The record discloses that in arriving at the private agreement the plaintiff was represented by counsel -- specifically, by the office of her present counsel. The plaintiff has cited no relevant authority supporting her position. She cites to us ORS 109.230 which provides:

"Any contract between the mother and father of

a child born out of wedlock is a legal contract, and the admission by the father of his fatherhood of the child is sufficient consideration to support the contract."

This casts no light on the question, because the issue here is not the legality of the agreement, but the power of the court to modify it because of a change in circumstances. She then cites to us various texts saying that such agreements are enforceable. We discern this from ORS 109.230 without extrinsic aid.

She then cites to us Feves v. Feves, 198 Or 151, 254 P2d 694 (1953), and Wells v. Wells, 2 Or App 221, 467 P2d 650 (1970). Both of these cases deal with the court's power to modify decrees, not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.