Case Name: In the Matter of the Marriage of WOOD, Respondent, and WOOD, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1987-09-09
Citations: 87 Or. App. 384
Docket Number: 84-1813-E; CA A40978
Parties: In the Matter of the Marriage of WOOD, Respondent, and WOOD, Appellant.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Warren, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 87
Pages: 384–385

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted June 5,
affirmed September 9,
reconsideration denied November 13,
petition for review denied December 15, 1987 (304 Or 547)
In the Matter of the Marriage of WOOD, Respondent, and WOOD, Appellant.
(84-1813-E; CA A40978)
742 P2d 74
Sandra Sawyer, Medford, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Grant, Ferguson, Carter, P.C., Med-ford.
Penny Lee Austin, Medford, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Warren, Judge.
PER CURIAM

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.