Case Name: In the Matter of the Marriage of Rhonda E. SIMPSON, nka Rhonda E. Johnson, Petitioner, and Gregory J. SIMPSON, Respondent. STATE OF OREGON ex rel Rhonda E. JOHNSON, Respondent, v. Gregory J. SIMPSON, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1996-02-14
Citations: 139 Or. App. 152
Docket Number: 84-6-123; CA A87465
Parties: In the Matter of the Marriage of Rhonda E. SIMPSON, nka Rhonda E. Johnson, Petitioner, and Gregory J. SIMPSON, Respondent. STATE OF OREGON ex rel Rhonda E. JOHNSON, Respondent, v. Gregory J. SIMPSON, Appellant.
Judges: Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 139
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted January 24,
reversed February 14, 1996
In the Matter of the Marriage of Rhonda E. SIMPSON, nka Rhonda E. Johnson, Petitioner, and Gregory J. SIMPSON, Respondent. STATE OF OREGON ex rel Rhonda E. JOHNSON, Respondent, v. Gregory J. SIMPSON, Appellant.
(84-6-123; CA A87465)
910 P2d 1180
Michael J. Clancy argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
J. Gary McClain argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Mundorff, McClain & Korvac.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Husband appeals from a judgment in a contempt proceeding. We reverse.
Husband and wife were divorced under a judgment that was entered on November 20, 1984. The judgment awarded wife an equitable lien in the amount of $5,000 "due and payable on or before November 19, 1994." Wife never renewed the judgment and it expired, pursuant to ORS 18.360(1), on November 20, 1994. Wife initiated a contempt proceeding to enforce the lien in December 1994. The trial court held that the lien was enforceable. We disagree. Because payment of the lien was due before the expiration of the judgment, the "savings clause" in ORS 18.360(2) does not apply, and the lien expired with the judgment on November 20, 1994.
Reversed.
ORS 18.360(1) provides, in part, that "[w]henever after the entry of a judgment, a period of 10 years elapses, the judgment and any docketed or recorded lien thereof shall expire."
ORS 18.360(2) provides that, when a dissolution judgment requires the payment of money on a date ten or more years from the date of the judgment, the part of the judgment that requires that payment does not expire until ten years after the date on which the payment becomes due, even though the balance of the judgment would expire in ten years if not renewed.