FRAUD AND DECEIT / §40.2
(1979). In Cary v. Cary, 159 Or 578, 80 P2d 886 (1938), the court followed public policy considerations in holding that marriage tolls the statute of limitations in a claim between spouses. Without citing Cary, the court in Heino v. Harper, supra, rejected the same policy considerations. It is questionable whether the Cary case would be decided the same way today. See Richard W. Scholl, Alone at Last–Oregon Abolishes Interspousal Immunity for Negligent Torts in Heino v. Harper, 25 WILLAMETTE L REV 429, 452 (1989). X.
(§38.10) Child Abuse A civil action based on child abuse that occurs while the victim is under 18 years of age must be commenced within the longer of (1) six years after the child turns 18 years old or (2) if the injured person does not discover the injury or the causal connection between the injury and the child abuse, then three years from the date of the discovery. ORS 12.117. This statute of limitations may revive a cause of action barred by former ORS 12.117. See the note following ORS 12.117.
XI.
(§38.11) References See generally FAMILY LAW (Oregon CLE 2002). FINES AND FORFEITURES
I.
(§39.1)
The defendant is personally liable to the county for unpaid fines or costs resulting from a proceeding before a county hearings officer to enforce county ordinances if the fines or costs are not paid within 60 days after payment is ordered. ORS 30.460.
II.
(§39.2)
The order for payment may be recorded in the County Clerk Lien Record. ORS 30.460. FRAUD AND DECEIT
I.
(§40.1)
An action based on fraud or deceit must be commenced within two years after the date of discovery of the fraud or deceit. ORS 12.110(1); see ORS 12.040(4).
II.
(§40.2)
“Discovery” of the fraud or deceit requires that (1) a plaintiff have sufficient knowledge to excite attention and put the plaintiff on guard or cause the plaintiff to make an inquiry and (2) with such knowledge, a reasonably diligent inquiry by the plaintiff would disclose the fraud. Mathies v. Hoeck, 284 Or 539, 588 P2d 1 (1978); Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or 247, 864 P2d 1319 (1994); Widing v. Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, 154 Or App 276, 961 P2d 889 (1998).
81