Case Name: In the Matter of the Marriage of John M. PROCTOR, Respondent, and Joyce A. SMITH PROCTOR, Appellant. Joyce A. SMITH PROCTOR, Appellant, v. John KENDALL MAVIS, Respondent, and Chris POPOV, Sandra Meyers, and William Martell Meyers, Third-Party Respondents below
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2006-02-08
Citations: 204 Or. App. 250
Docket Number: 15-02-23725; A123045
Parties: In the Matter of the Marriage of John M. PROCTOR, Respondent, and Joyce A. SMITH PROCTOR, Appellant. Joyce A. SMITH PROCTOR, Appellant, v. John KENDALL MAVIS, Respondent, and Chris POPOV, Sandra Meyers, and William Martell Meyers, Third-Party Respondents below.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Rosenblum, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 204
Pages: 250–252

Head Matter:
On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed January 10 and respondent’s response to appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed January 13,
reconsideration allowed; former opinion (203 Or App 499,125 P3d 801 (2005)) modified, ruling on wife’s request for attorney fees vacated; opinion otherwise adhered to February 8,
petition for review denied May 23,2006 (340 Or 672)
In the Matter of the Marriage of John M. PROCTOR, Respondent, and Joyce A. SMITH PROCTOR, Appellant. Joyce A. SMITH PROCTOR, Appellant, v. John KENDALL MAVIS, Respondent, and Chris POPOV, Sandra Meyers, and William Martell Meyers, Third-Party Respondents below.
15-02-23725; A123045
129 P3d 186
Mark Johnson and Johnson Renshaw & Lechman-Su PC for petition.
Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., and Greene & Markley, P.C. for response for respondent John M. Proctor.
Russell Lipetzky waived appearance for respondent Kendall Mavis.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Rosenblum, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Wife has petitioned for reconsideration of our decision in this dissolution case, contending that we erred in affirming the trial court ruling that had denied her an award of attorney fees. She contends that we should have vacated the attorney fee decision on appeal in light of our decision to reverse and remand for reconsideration of the property award in the case. We agree with wife. We therefore modify our opinion by deleting the discussion of wife's third assignment of error and replacing it with the following:
"In her third assignment of error, wife contends that the trial court erred in denying her request for attorney fees. In light of our decision to reverse and remand the property division for reconsideration, we vacate the trial court's decision on attorney fees and remand for reconsideration of that issue as well. See Garza and Garza, 201 Or App 318, 330, 118 P3d 824 (2005)."
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified, ruling on wife's request for attorney fees vacated; opinion otherwise adhered to.