Wife appeals from a judgment of dissolution of the parties' 27-year marriage. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding that husband had rebutted the presumption of equal contribution as to the inheritance and we modify the property division to award wife one-half of the account bearing the inheritance proceeds. The parties were both 47 years old at the time of trial and in good health. They were married in 1976 and separated in 2001. The parties met in high school and married when husband was in his second year of college in Idaho. While husband completed college, wife worked full time and husband worked part time. In 1978, they moved to Portland so that husband could attend dental school. Wife found a job checking groceries at Safeway and became head checker. Husband's parents helped the parties financially in the early part of their marriage, including payment of tuition and a house down payment. Husband graduated from dental school in 1982 and, in December 1982, the parties jointly purchased a dental practice. For the first few years, the dental practice earned little or no income and wife supported the family with her full-time employment. Shortly before the parties separated in 2001, husband's mother died. Her estate consisted of her home, the balance due on the Idaho cabin, and some cash. Husband's sister, Janae, was the personal representative of the estate. She set up an account for each beneficiary - Janae, husband, and their brother Mark - and divided the proceeds of the estate equally among them. The estate forgave \(\$ 45,000\) of indebtedness on the cabin. Husband's inheritance from his mother came to approximately \(\$ 65,000\). Husband kept the money in the same account set up by Janae and has never commingled it with the parties' assets. The balance has grown to \(\$ 87,000 \ldots\) The question is whether the trial court erred in failing to award wife an equal share of the account bearing the proceeds of husband's inheritance from his mother. Husband concedes that the inheritance is a marital asset because it was acquired during the marriage and that, like any other gift, it is subject to a rebuttable presumption of equal contribution. ORS 107.105(1)(f); Kunze and Kunze, 337 Ore. 122, 133, 92 P.3d 100 (2004). The presumption is rebutted by evidence that the asset was acquired "free of any contributions from the other spouse.....

Questions:

1. Why, under Oregon law, is there no dispute over the fact that the inheritance proceeds are marital rather than separate?
2. Explain the role that the "rebuttable presumption of equal contribution" plays in this case.
3. What evidence does the husband offer to rebut the presumption?
4. What arguments does the wife offer to show equal contribution?
5. What does the court conclude and why?