In the Marriage of Boyd and Boyd

“An award of child support is intended to benefit the child… By contrast, a discretionary award of attorney fees, such as the one at issue here, is for the benefit of the other party.” ORS 25.275(2)(a); ORS 197.135(8).

Mother appeals a corrected supplemental judgment awarding Father attorney fees after a proceeding to modify custody, parenting time, and child support. The Court rejected four of Mother’s five assignments of error, and addressed the challenge to the trial court’s categorization of the attorney fee judgment as “being in the nature of child support.” Father had requested the challenged language to prevent Mother from being eligible to discharge the debt in a federal bankruptcy proceeding. “An award of child support is intended to benefit the child… By contrast, a discretionary award of attorney fees, such as the one at issue here is for the benefit of the other party.” ORS 25.275(2)(a); ORS 197.135(8). The Court held that the trial court erred by including language in the attorney judgment suggesting there was an equivalence between the statutory schemes for child support and for awards of reasonable attorney fees. Reversed and remanded as to the attorney fees corrected supplemental judgment, otherwise affirmed.