Marriage of Wildin, In re, 75--812

• Decision Date: 07 April 1977
• Docket Number: No. 75--812,75--812
• Citation: 563 P.2d 384,39 Colo.App. 189
• Parties: In re the MARRIAGE OF Elsie Baer WILDIN, Appellee, and Walter George WILDIN, Appellant. . II
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 384

563 P.2d 384

39 Colo.App. 189

In re the MARRIAGE OF Elsie Baer WILDIN, Appellee and Walter George WILDIN, Appellant.

No. 75--812.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

April 7, 1977.

David D. Mulligan, Denver, for appellee.

Rector, Melat & Wheeler, P.C., Jerry A. Retherford, Leo W. Rector, Colorado Springs, for appellant.

ENOCH, Judge.

Walter George Wildin appeals from the property orders entered in connection with the dissolution of his marriage to Elsie Baer wildin. We reverse and remand.

Elsie Wildin sought dissolution of their marriage of 39 years. The court found, on substantial evidence, that at the time of their marriage Mrs. Wildin owned stocks and bonds having a value of $493,000. The court also found that Mr. Wildin brought into the marriage assets valued at between $30,000 and $40,000. However, the record is not clear as to what his total separate assets consisted of and the court made no findings on this matter. It is undisputed that for the entire marriage neither party was actively employed except for a nine-month period when Mr. Wildin ran a gambling club, and for a three-year period during World War II when he worked in a defense plant. The court found that the couple had lived off of the income from the stocks and bonds brought into the marriage by Mrs. Wildin, and that surplus income was used to purchase additional stocks and bonds in Mrs. Wildin's name.

During the marriage, Mr. Wildin inherited some stocks and bonds, as well as interests in several tracts of real property. There was evidence as to the value of this property, but the court did not find either the value at the time of acquisition or at the time of the property division proceedings.

The parties stipulated at the time of the hearing that the stocks and bonds held in Mrs. Wildin's name had a current market value of $1,683,516, stocks and bonds held in Mr. Wildin's name had a market value of $16,804, and jointly-owned stock had a value of $27,670.

The court awarded to each party the stocks and bonds held in their individual names. It was determined that the jointly-held stock was derived from Mr. Wildin's inheritance, and he was awarded those stocks. Each party's individual bank account remained with that party, and a joint account was divided equally. Mr. Wildin received $3,431 and Mrs. Wildin received $19,214 from the bank accounts. Each party received the life insurance policies in his or her respective name. The cash surrender value of Mrs. Wildin's policies was stipulated to be $124,521 and that of Mr. Wildin was $1,200.

A house acquired in Florida during the marriage was ordered sold, and the proceeds divided equally. Mr. Wildin was awarded the real property interests he had inherited during the marriage. It appears from the record that at the time of the marriage Mrs. Wildin owned a house in Fort Collins and that the parties lived there during part of the marriage. The court found that though she had made a valid conveyance of this property during the marriage the house would have been awarded to her in any event. She also received all furniture in that house and in the Florida residence. Each party was awarded one of their two cars. The value of the houses, real property, furniture and cars was not stipulated to, and, although there was testimony as to their value, the court made no findings thereon.

Mrs. Wildin was ordered to pay Mr. Wildin maintenance of $850 per month, and was also ordered to keep one of her insurance policies in force in order to assure this maintenance would continue if she predeceased Mr. Wildin.

Mr. Wildin appeals the refusal of the court to award him any portion of the stocks and bonds held in Mrs. Wildin's name, claiming that the court erred in finding that he had not contributed to the increase in value of these assets, and in taking judicial notice of certain facts pertaining to investment practices in the stock market.

The property disposition in a dissolution proceeding is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. In re Marriage of Armbeck 33 Colo.App. 260, 518 P.2d 300. However, because of incomplete and unsubstantiated findings in this case, we are unable to ascertain if there was an abuse of discretion.

Disposition of property is governed by § 14--10--113, C.R.S.1973, and under the requirements of that statute, it is essential for the court to classify the property of the parties as either separate or marital. Not all of the property was so classified in this case.

Under the statute, the court must also determine the approximate current value of the property in each class, and the value of the separate property as of the time of the marriage, or as...