Parsley v. Oregon

The validity of a circuit court judgment may not be attacked in a subsequent contempt proceeding. Additionally, a plaintiff is not required to appear at a contempt hearing.

Defendant Snodgrass appealed a circuit court judgment holding him in contempt of court. He argued that his agreement to pay his Oregon Pubic Employees Retirement System (PERS) benefit to Plaintiff was unenforceable because PERS benefits are unassignable. He also argued that Plaintiff had to be present at the contempt hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment, which held Defendant in contempt for not complying with the court's order, based on his confession of judgment to instruct PERS to send payments to the Plaintiff's trust. Defendant did not challenge the validity of that judgment and the Court of Appeals found that he could not attack the validity of the judgment in a later contempt proceeding. Defendant next argued that Plaintiff's absence at the contempt hearing did not give him the opportunity to confront her. The Court found no authority that required Plaintiff to be present at the contempt hearing. Affirmed.