
    Argued and submitted June 10,
    affirmed October 16,
    reconsideration denied December 6, 1985, petition for review denied January 14, 1986 (300 Or 477)
    In the Matter of the Marriage of JOHNSON, Respondent, and JOHNSON, Appellant.
    
    (83-08-19017-E; CA A32757)
    707 P2d 1288
    D. Michael Wells, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Hutchinson, Anderson, Cox & Teising, Eugene.
    William F. Schroeder, Vale, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Katherine J. Schroeder, Portland, and Schroeder & Hutchens, Vale.
    Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Husband appeals the spousal and child support provisions in the parties’ dissolution judgment. We review de novo. ORS 19.125(3).

The spousal support award was based in part on the trial court’s determination of the value of, and wife’s contribution to, husband’s professional degrees. We conclude that the award is equitable, considering the length of the marriage, wife’s serious and ongoing health problems, her limited earning potential and other relevant facts. ORS 107.105(1)(d). For that reason, in reviewing the award, we need not address the trial court’s rationale.

The child support provision of the judgment is just and proper. ORS 107.105(1)(c).

Affirmed. Costs to wife.  