No. 916 December 18, 2024 905 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Marriage of Marcia Annette GLASER, fka Marcia Annette Klippenes, Petitioner-Appellant Cross-Respondent, and Donald Edgar KLIPPENES, Respondent-Respondent Cross-Appellant.

Linn County Circuit Court 21DR07327; A180513 Keith B. Stein, Judge.

Argued and submitted November 5, 2024.

George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant-cross-respondent.

Ruth A. Casby argued the cause for respondent-cross- appellant. Also on the briefs were Janet M. Schroer and Hart Wagner LLP.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Hellman, Judge.

JOYCE, J.

Affirmed on appeal and cross-appeal.

906 Glaser and Klippenes JOYCE, J.

Wife appeals from a judgment of divorce. She raises six assignments of error, challenging the property division and spousal support award. Husband cross-appeals, assign- ing error to the trial court’s award of maintenance support and the court’s valuation of one of the marital assets. We affirm.

Wife and husband were married for 26 years. They have no children, and both have had long careers in the health insurance agent industry. During the marriage, the parties began a health insurance company that proved successful. In the divorce proceedings, the parties litigated the valuation and division of that business as well as spou- sal support. Both parties presented expert testimony on the value of the business and its personal and enterprise goodwill. The trial court made detailed factual findings and extensive legal rulings, set forth in a 19-page letter opin- ion, ruling in favor of wife on a number of grounds and for husband on others. Wife then sought reconsideration on the trial court’s ruling as to the tax rate to be applied to the business, resulting in additional briefing and another letter opinion by the trial court denying wife’s motion.

As noted, on appeal and cross-appeal both wife and husband raise multiple assignments of error challeng- ing the trial court’s property division and support rulings.

Mindful of the various standards of review that the parties’ assignments of error implicate, we have reviewed the trial court’s thorough findings and analysis and find no error. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed on appeal and cross-appeal.