Case Name: In the Matter of the Marriage of BOYD, Respondent - Cross-Appellant, and BOYD, Appellant - Cross-Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1981-03-09
Citations: 51 Or. App. 121
Docket Number: No. 55525, CA 17947
Parties: In the Matter of the Marriage of BOYD, Respondent - Cross-Appellant, and BOYD, Appellant - Cross-Respondent.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Van Hoomissen, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 51
Pages: 121–123

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted January 21,
affirmed as modified March 9, 1981
In the Matter of the Marriage of BOYD, Respondent - Cross-Appellant, and BOYD, Appellant - Cross-Respondent.
(No. 55525, CA 17947)
624 P2d 654
David W. Hittle, Salem, argued the cause for appellant - cross-respondent. With him on the briefs was Olson, Hittle, Gardner & Evans, Salem.
J. W. Walton, Corvallis, argued the cause for respondent - cross-appellant. On the briefs were S. David Eves and Ringo, Walton, Eves & Gardner, P.C., Corvallis.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Van Hoomissen, Judges.
RICHARDSON, P.J.

Opinion:
RICHARDSON, P.J.
Husband appeals a decree of dissolution contending that he should have been awarded custody of the parties' children, that the property division was inequitable and that the child support should be reduced. Wife cross-appeals, contending the decree should require husband to maintain medical and dental insurance for the children and a life insurance policy with the children as beneficiaries. She also contends the court erred in not awarding her attorney fees.
After de novo review of the record, we concur in the trial court's award of custody, the property division and the amount of child support.
In his brief, husband agrees the decree should include a provision regarding medical and life insurance for the benefit of the children. The decree is modified to require husband to maintain medical and dental insurance covering the children as long as such insurance is available through his employment. He is required to maintain the present insurance policy on his life, naming the children as beneficiaries until the obligation to pay child support terminates.
Regarding attorney fees, we conclude the court did not err in declining to award attorney fees to wife.
Affirmed as modified. Costs to respondent - cross-appellant.