1. Are a husband and wife permitted to resolve the financial issues relating to the dissolution of their marriage by entering into an agreement?
   
   Yes. The Oregon legislature has expressed a strong policy in favor of the enforceability of settlement agreements executed in the context of dissolution disputes. In 2001, the legislature enacted ORS 107.104,[fn2] which provides:
   
   
   1. It is the policy of this state:
      1. To encourage the settlement of suits for marital annulment, dissolution or separation; and
         
         
      2. 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.
   2. 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:
      1. As contract terms using contract remedies;
         
         
      2. By imposing any remedy available to enforce a judgment, including but not limited to contempt; or
         
         
      3. By any combination of the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection.
         
         
2. Are Marital Property Settlement Agreements Enforceable?
   
   Yes. Property settlement agreements that are incorporated into Oregon divorce judgments are fully enforceable through the same legal processes that apply to judgments that are entered by the court upon a plenary trial.
   
   
3. Are There Provisions/Agreements that a Court may Refuse to Enforce?
   
   Yes, there are two types of circumstances in which a court in Oregon may decline to enforce an marital agreement. First, settlement agreements will not be enforced if doing so would contravene the law. ORS 107.104(1)(b) (it is the policy of the state "[f]or courts to enforce the terms of [settlement agreements] to the fullest extent possible, except when to do so would violate the law"); see McDonnal v. McDonnal, 293 Or 772, 779, 652 P2d 1247 (1982) ("[S]hort of conflict with the statutory powers of the court we recognize the court's responsibility to discover and give effect to the intent of the parties as reflected in the incorporated settlement agreement."). Second, even if enforcement would not directly violate the law, a separation agreement will not be enforced if doing so would contravene public policy. ORS 107.104(1)(b) (settlement agreements are to be enforced "to the fullest extent possible," unless enforcement" would clearly contravene public policy"); See, e.g., Porter and Porter, 100 Or App 401, 404, 786 P2d 740, rev den, 310 Or 281 (1990) ("Courts should enforce, not disturb, negotiated settlement agreements, unless there is an overriding public policy reason for not doing so."); Hearn and Hearn, 128 Or App 259, 265, 875 P2d 508 (1994)

The above information provided for general information purposes only, and is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. This information may not be applicable in all situations.