918 P.2d 858 (Or.App. 1996), CA A88677, Matter of Marriage of Peterson
|Docket Nº:||94DO1681DS; CA A88677.|
|Citation:||918 P.2d 858, 141 Or.App. 446|
|Opinion Judge:||RIGGS, P. J.|
|Party Name:||In the Matter of the MARRIAGE Of Jacqueline B. PETERSON, Respondent, and Thomas D. Peterson, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Jeffrey E. Potter argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Potter & Budge. George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.|
|Case Date:||June 19, 1996|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Oregon|
Argued and Submitted Dec. 18, 1995.
[141 Or.App. 447] Jeffrey E. Potter, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Potter & Budge.
George W. Kelly, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before RIGGS, P.J., and LANDAU and LEESON, JJ.
[141 Or.App. 448] RIGGS, Presiding Judge.
Husband appeals from a judgment of dissolution, challenging the trial court's distribution of property and its award of attorney fees to wife. On de novo review, ORS 19.125(3), we modify the judgment.
At the time of trial, wife, age 46, and husband, age 48, had been married for 22 years. They have two minor children. Husband is a physician and owns a sports medicine practice with offices in Eugene and Roseburg. He earns $12,500 per month. Wife teaches and tutors French, earning $823 per month.
Before trial, the parties agreed to a child custody arrangement and a spousal support amount. Based on that agreement, the court granted custody of the couple's children to wife and awarded her spousal support in the amount of $4,000 per month for five years, $2,500 per month for the following five years and $1,000 per month thereafter, indefinitely. The court ordered husband to pay wife $853 per month for child support. In the property division, wife received $182,444 in assets, including the marital residence and rental property, and husband received $190,277 in assets, consisting primarily of his medical practice. The court awarded wife $9,014 for her attorney fees.
Husband's primary contention on appeal is that the trial court "grossly overvalued" his medical practice. The court found the value of the practice to be $153,578, using a formula provided by an appraiser who was jointly hired by the parties. The appraiser testified that the fair market value of the practice could be determined by adding together the value of the accounts receivable, the cash balance, goodwill, equipment and furnishings. 1 Following that approach, the court calculated the value of the accounts receivable to be $65,324, the cash balance to be $30,000 and the furniture and equipment to be $8,115. It...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP