Marriage of Kiefer, In re, 85CA1263
| Decision Date | 16 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85CA1263,85CA1263 |
| Citation | 738 P.2d 54 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Francis H. KIEFER, Appellant, and Sharon S. Kiefer, Appellee. . IV |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C., Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., Aspen, for appellant.
Sheldon F. Goldberg, Denver, for appellee.
In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, husband, Francis H. Kiefer, appeals the permanent orders entered concerning property division and attorney fees. We affirm in part, and reverse in part.
The property division dispute concerns the appreciated value of the marital residence. Husband had owned the home before the marriage, and it was worth $110,000 when the parties were married. During the 2 1/2-year marriage, the property was encumbered for $45,000. This amount was spent on improvements to the house for the purpose of accommodating wife's children from a previous marriage.
Husband testified that, because of depreciation in the area real estate market, the home's current value was $135,000, despite the $45,000 in improvements. Based on information husband had given her after an appraisal two years before, wife testified that the property was worth $175,000. No other testimony was presented.
The trial court determined that husband's asserted value was not credible. The court noted that the $45,000 in improvements, in addition to $10,000 in labor contributed by husband, logically would make the home's value closer to wife's estimate. Therefore, the court found the current fair market value to be $175,000. Of the $65,000 in appreciated value, the court awarded wife $30,000 as an equitable division. Consequently, the trial court awarded the house to husband, and he was ordered to execute a $30,000 note payable to wife secured by a deed of trust on the house.
The court also ordered husband to pay wife $1,500 in attorney fees based on the parties' "relative financial conditions." The court found that although wife was presently unemployed, she had the clear ability to earn $1,200 a month, had other independent means of support, and had recently declined a job paying $1,000 a month. On this basis, wife was denied maintenance.
Husband first contends the court erred in valuing the home at $175,000. Specifically, he argues that he presented the only evidence of the current value of the property as required by § 14-10-113(5), C.R.S. Therefore, husband reasons, the court erred in accepting wife's evidence of a value that existed two years before the decree. We disagree.
The court specifically found that husband's testimony was not credible. Wife's estimate of value was the only other direct evidence and was consistent with the home's undisputed premarital value combined with improvement costs. This evidence was sufficient to support the determination of value, and we will not disturb it on review.
Husband next contends the court erred in awarding wife a portion of the home's appreciated value without taking into account the encumbrances that had been incurred during the marriage for improvements to the property. While we do not agree that the court was required first to deduct the amount of encumbrances before dividing the appreciation, see In re Marriage of Faulkner, 652 P.2d 572 (Colo.1982), we determine that, contrary to the situation in Faulkner, here, the trial court abused its discretion.
The trial court is imbued with broad discretion in matters of property division. In re Marriage of Hoffman, 650 P.2d 1344 (Colo.App.1982). Here, however, the court abused its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Bookout, In re
... ... Therefore, an award of $10,000 to satisfy these obligations was within the court's discretion. See In re Marriage of Kiefer, 738 P.2d 54 (Colo.App.1987) ... Finally, the court specifically observed that it was not required to divide the property equally ... ...
-
Marriage of Aldrich, In re, 96SC317
... ... See In re Marriage of Kiefer, 738 P.2d 54, 56 (Colo.App.1987). The district court then apportions fees and costs in light of the statute's equitable purpose, making findings ... ...
-
Marriage of Speirs, In re
... ... In re Marriage of Kiefer, 738 P.2d 54 (Colo.App.1987). A spouse's educational degree acquired during the marriage is not considered marital property. In re Marriage of ... ...
-
In re Marriage of Hill
...their relative incomes, assets, and liabilities. In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370, 1378 (Colo.1997); In re Marriage of Kiefer, 738 P.2d 54, 56 (Colo.App.1987). The court is required to apportion attorney fees to ensure that neither party suffers undue economic hardship as a result o......
-
ARTICLE 10
...Newman, 44 Colo. App. 307, 616 P.2d 982 (1980), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 653 P.2d 728 (Colo. 1982); In re Kiefer, 738 P.2d 54 (Colo. App. 1987). Equitable lien created by decree of dissolution. Where wife was ordered to quitclaim her undivided one-third interest in ......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...Newman, 44 Colo. App. 307, 616 P.2d 982 (1980), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 653 P.2d 728 (Colo. 1982); In re Kiefer, 738 P.2d 54 (Colo. App. 1987). Equitable lien created by decree of dissolution. Where wife was ordered to quitclaim her undivided one-third interest in ......
-
Complex Financial Issues in Family Law Cases - October 2008
...e.g., Pratt, supra note 1; Pratt et al., Valuing a Business (McGraw Hill, 2000); Levis, supra note 1. 30. In re the Marriage of Keifer, 738 P.2d 54 (Colo.App. 1987); Nevarez, supra note 19. 31. CRS § 14-10-113(2) and (3). 32. Id. 33. Id. 34. CRS § 14-10-113(4); In re the Marriage of Wildin,......