Allen v. Allen, No. A03-1731 (MN 8/3/2004)
| Decision Date | 03 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. A03-1731.,A03-1731. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | James Russell Allen, petitioner, Appellant, v. Brenda Joyce Allen, Respondent. |
Appeal from the District Court, Cass County, File No. F7-99-836.
John E. Valen, Fifth & Michigan, (for appellant)
Michael R. Ruffenach, (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Hudson, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In this marriage dissolution proceeding, appellant James Allen argues that the district court abused its discretion by adopting respondent Brenda Allen's proposed findings, that the record does not support the district court's valuation of certain assets, that the district court failed to address what appellant alleged to be his nonmarital interest in the parties' home, that the record does not support awarding respondent maintenance, and that respondent should not have been awarded maintenance retroactive to the date the parties separated. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The parties married in 1976. After the parties' 1999 separation, they entered a mediated stipulation to dissolve their marriage, and wife moved to New Mexico and got a job as a waitress. The district court subsequently granted husband's motion to withdraw from the stipulation, and a dissolution trial was held in February 2001. The marriage was dissolved shortly thereafter, and an amended judgment addressing disputed issues was entered in August 2002. That judgment treated disability benefits received by husband as marital property; valued and divided the parties' assets, including a café that the parties acquired during their marriage; and awarded wife temporary monthly maintenance retroactive to the date of the parties' separation in August 1999. During the proceedings, the land on which the café was located was forfeited to the state for nonpayment of taxes. Citing this event, husband moved for posttrial relief. The district court stated that it lacked the information necessary to address the tax-forfeiture question and was "hopeful" that information on the subject would be submitted promptly. Husband submitted a copy of the tax-forfeiture statement but nothing else. On September 17, 2003, the district court denied husband's motion for posttrial relief. Husband appeals.
Husband alleges that the valuation and division of the parties' marital estate is defective because the district court adopted many of wife's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on these subjects. But even verbatim adoption of a party's proposed findings and conclusions is not reversible error per se, although it does raise the question of whether the district court independently evaluated the evidence. Bliss v. Bliss, 493 N.W.2d 583, 590 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Feb. 12, 1993). When a district court adopts proposed findings and conclusions, the findings are still subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review. Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 408 N.W.2d 654, 657 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Aug. 19, 1987).
Husband challenges the district court's valuation of various assets. A district court's valuation of an asset is a finding of fact and will not be set aside by an appellate court unless the valuation is clearly erroneous. Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145, 229 N.W.2d 42, 44 (1975). A district court need not be exact in its valuation of an asset; it is necessary only that the valuation be "within a reasonable range of figures." Johnson v. Johnson, 277 N.W.2d 208, 211 (Minn. 1979).
The district court valued the parties' home at $60,000. Husband argues that the valuation is too high, noting that he testified that the home was worth $25,000. Parties are presumptively competent to testify to the value of their assets. Bury v. Bury, 416 N.W.2d 133, 136 (Minn. App. 1987). But here, because wife testified that the home was worth $60,000, there is evidence to support the district court's valuation, and husband has not shown the $60,000 valuation is clearly erroneous.
Husband also argues that the district court erred by failing to find that husband has a nonmarital interest in the home. It is undisputed that during the marriage, husband received a workers'-compensation settlement of $63,000 and that he spent some of those funds on the home. Property received by either spouse during a marriage is presumed to be marital. Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 5 (2002). A party can rebut this presumption by showing that the property fits into one of the categories of nonmarital property listed in Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 5. See Robert v. Zygmunt, 652 N.W.2d 537, 541 (Minn. App. 2002) (). A recovery of noneconomic damages, including disability, is nonmarital property, while recovery for an economic loss suffered during a marriage is marital. Ward v. Ward, 453 N.W.2d 729, 731-32 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. June 6, 1990); see Hafner v. Hafner, 406 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Minn. App. 1987) (). A party seeking to claim a recovery for an injury as nonmarital property must show that all or part of that recovery "was awarded for personal injuries and not for replacement of marital property, such as lost wages[.]" Id. Because the record does not show the basis for husband's workers'-compensation recovery, husband did not rebut the presumption that the recovery was marital. Any equity in the marital home resulting from that recovery, therefore, is properly deemed marital, and the district court's failure to find that husband has a nonmarital interest in the home is not clearly erroneous.
The district court also valued at $30,000 a concession stand that the parties acquired during the marriage. Husband admits that this valuation is consistent with wife's testimony, but he argues that wife's valuation is her "unsubstantiated opinion," essentially claiming that wife's testimony was not credible. Appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations. Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988). Additionally, wife's familiarity with the concession stand can be inferred from the fact that she worked at the stand for 18 years during the marriage. The record supports the presumption allowed by Bury that wife is familiar with the concession stand's value, and the district court's valuation is not clearly erroneous.
The district court treated husband's social-security disability and Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.) disability payments as marital assets, valuing them at $12,749 and $39,900, respectively. Nothing in the record describes the precise nature of the disability payments, supports the valuations placed on them by the district court, or explains how the valuations were reached.
"[I]ncome" is statutorily defined to include "disability payments." Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 6 (2002). Therefore, prospective social-security disability benefits and military disability benefits are not generally treated as property but as income. See Maurer v. Maurer, 607 N.W.2d 176, 185 (Minn. App. 2000) (), rev'd on other grounds 623 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 2001); Sward v. Sward, 410 N.W.2d 442, 444 (Minn. App. 1987) (), review granted (Minn. Sept. 30, 1987) and appeal dismissed (Minn. Dec. 2, 1987). We reverse the district court's treatment of husband's social-security disability benefits and his V.A. disability payments as assets and remand for the district court either to treat them as income or to explain fully why they should be treated as property and to value them with findings that explain the bases for the values. Cf. Ward, 453 N.W.2d at 732; Hafner, 406 N.W.2d at 593.
The district court valued the café at $85,108 and awarded it to husband. This valuation is higher than the $50,000 valuation that husband testified to, the $50,000 that a third party testified that she would pay for the café, and the county's $50,400 assessed valuation of the café. It is even higher than the $85,000 price at which the café was unsuccessfully listed for sale in 1999. This record does not support the district court's valuation of the café, and that question is remanded.
In a virtually unsupported motion for amended findings or a new trial, husband asked the district court to exclude the café's value from the marital estate because of the tax forfeiture. The district court requested additional information, and husband submitted a copy of the tax-forfeiture statement but nothing else. The district court denied husband's motion, stating it could not identify the reasons for the tax forfeiture and the failure to redeem the property when
[husband] was occupying the property with his business and the records of that business do not give the Court a picture of the operation. [Husband] testified as to the value of the property and it would appear that that testimony is correct that a redemption could have and should have occurred. In addition a sale [of the café] was pending which apparently fell through and there are allegations that one or both of the parties was uncooperative to permit the sale. However, the Court does not find sufficient evidence upon which it may or should amend its prior findings of fact, conclusions of law, order for judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial