
    Argued and submitted September 21, 1992,
    award of child support remanded; otherwise affirmed February 17, 1993
    In the Matter of the Marriage of Vicky Dawn BAKER, Respondent, and Carl Henry BAKER, Appellant.
    
    (91-1-369; CA A73068)
    845 P2d 937
    William E. Hensley, Oregon City, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gevurtz, Menashe, Hergert, Larson & Kurshner, PC, Oregon City.
    Mary Wilbur Ebel, Clackamas, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Kenneth Lee Baker, Clackamas.
    Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Durham, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
    
      
       Riggs, J., vice Joseph, C. J., retired.
    
   PER CURIAM

Husband appeals from a dissolution judgment. He seeks reversal of provisions relating to the valuation of a video rental business, spousal support, the time allowed to pay an equalizing judgment and child support. On de novo review, ORS 19.125(3), we affirm the trial court on the valuation of the video rental business, spousal support, and the time for paying the equalization judgment. However, the trial court erred in calculating the presumed basic child support obligation. The court applied the formula for one child although the parties have two.

The award of child support remanded for recalculation; otherwise affirmed. Costs to husband.  