Appeal from Circuit Court, Harney County. Charles H. Foster, Judge.
Douglas G. Combs, Ontario, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Martin P. Gallagher, Ontario.
W. F. Schroeder, Vale, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Schroeder, Denning & Hutchens, Vale.
Fort, Judge. Schwab, Chief Judge, and Thornton, Judge.
The wife as petitioner was granted a decree of dissolution of marriage. Respondent husband appeals from those portions of the decree relating to child support, support for the wife, division of property and award of attorney fees to the petitioner.
The parties, married about 20 years, had five
children. The court awarded custody of the two older children, ages 18 and 17, to the husband and the three younger children, ages 13, 10 and 5, to the mother. This award is not challenged on appeal.
The husband is a chiropractor. The joint tax returns filed by the parties for the past ten years are in evidence. At no time during the last five years did his net income from his practice reach $700 per month, varying from $525 per month in 1967 to a high in 1970 of $677. The last full year of the marriage his average monthly income from his practice was $620. Depreciation on professional equipment raised his cash flow $138.50 per month. During the same year petitioner earned $5,026.68 as a school teacher from the Malheur County School District. The parties owned a duplex which showed consistently a substantial net loss for tax purposes. Excluding depreciation its annual cash flow income was $304.05. Income from interest was $473.36, and $125.94 from dividends. Principal payments on mortgages, however, are not included.
Finally, the wife from her private music teaching earned apart from her position with the school district a further sum she estimated at $1,000. The court awarded her the savings accounts and tax refund aggregating in excess of $10,000, and also all shares of stock having a total value of approximately $5,000. Much of the award to the wife was made to compensate her for her own inheritance from her parents. Respondent, however, was awarded his accounts receivable. We think this reasonable under the circumstances.
All the real property including the home, the duplex and his chiropractic office were located on a single piece of property, various portions of which were heavily but separately encumbered. The buildings
were so located that they were in certain respects mutually dependent upon one another for some essential services. There was no error in awarding the ...