In re the Marriage of Wood

Court of Appeals of Oregon

In re the Marriage of Wood

742 P.2d 74, 87 Or. App. 384

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 9, 1987

Docket84-1813-E; CA A40978

StatusPublished

This text of 742 P.2d 74 (In re the Marriage of Wood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Marriage of Wood, 742 P.2d 74, 87 Or. App. 384 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Husband appeals the property division made by the trial court in dissolving this 23-year marriage. Much of his argument relates to the award to wife of certain property that he contends belonged to a corporation owned by him and wife. To the extent that that occurred, husband proposed that disposition in the trial court and may not now complain. We interpret the judgment to award all of the capital stock of that corporation to husband. He must cause the corporation to effectuate the necessary transfers.

Husband also complains of the valuation placed on a parcel of timber land, referred to as the “Gasquet” property. Although the record on the valuation is not good, much of that deficiency must be attributed to husband. We accept the trial court’s valuation, given the record that was made. He also contends that the property description of that property is not correct. At oral argument wife’s attorney assured this court that, if there is any problem with the description, wife will join in a motion in the trial court to correct it.

Finally, husband contends that the property distribution was not equal, which he contends it should be. On de novo review, we are satisfied that the trial court achieved a just and equitable property division.

Affirmed. Costs to wife.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Husband appeals the property division made by the trial court in dissolving this 23-year marriage. Much of his argument relates to the award to wife of certain property that he contends belonged to a corporation owned by him and wife. To the extent that that occurred, husband proposed that disposition in the trial court and may not now complain. We interpret the judgment to award all of the capital stock of that corporation to husband. He must cause the corporation to effectuate the necessary transfers.

Husband also complains of the valuation placed on a parcel of timber land, referred to as the “Gasquet” property. Although the record on the valuation is not good, much of that deficiency must be attributed to husband. We accept the trial court’s valuation, given the record that was made. He also contends that the property description of that property is not correct. At oral argument wife’s attorney assured this court that, if there is any problem with the description, wife will join in a motion in the trial court to correct it.

Finally, husband contends that the property distribution was not equal, which he contends it should be. On de novo review, we are satisfied that the trial court achieved a just and equitable property division.

Affirmed. Costs to wife.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

742 P.2d 74, 87 Or. App. 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-marriage-of-wood-orctapp-1987.