Roberson v. Roberson
| Citation | 296 Minn. 476,206 N.W.2d 347 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 43794,43794 |
| Parties | Sara J. ROBERSON, Respondent, v. John ROBERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Anderson & Christopherson and B. W. Christopherson, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Ruttenberg, Orren, Griswold & Norton and Kenneth P. Griswold, St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and TODD, MacLAUGHLIN, and OLSON, JJ.
Defendant husband appeals from a judgment for divorce. He does not challenge the court's grant of child custody or the divorce itself to plaintiff wife, but objects solely to the distribution of property.
The trial court awarded plaintiff all the property acquired during coverture except the landscape business which the defendant had operated as a family business. Plaintiff was also awarded $200 per month as support for two teenage children.
Plaintiff was a school teacher under contract for $7,600 per year for the 1971--1972 school year. Prior to that, she had assisted in the operation of the landscape business, which was started in 1954. The evidence on values of the parties' real estate which was awarded to plaintiff, briefly summarized, was as follows: (a) The net equity in the Third Avenue rental property was approximately $7,000; (b) the net equity in the Portland Avenue rental property was approximately $4,000; (c) the net equity in the homestead was $6,300 according to plaintiff's testimony but was $18,300 according to defendant's testimony.
Defendant's annual earnings from his landscape business were disputed; he testified he earned $4,800 annually, while plaintiff testified he earned $8,000 to $10,000 annually. Neither party testified or offered any evidence on the value, if any, of the business. Plaintiff's testimony placing the gross income of the business at $60,000 and defendant's conflicting testimony as to his earnings from it provide an insufficient basis for computing its value by any method, including capitalization; attaching a value to a business by capitalizing its income ordinarily requires exclusion of the value of personal services rendered by the owner.
The trial court failed to make findings of fact from which it can be determined on what basis the court made its award. While there is evidence, recited above, albeit disputed, on the values of the three real estate holdings, there is a dearth of evidence to determine on what basis value, if any, was attached to the landscape business.
Rule 52.01, Rules of Civil Procedure, provides in part as follows:
We have held that where the record is reasonably clear and the facts not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dardick v. Dardick
...(findings must be so explicit as to give an appellate court a clear understanding of the basis of the decision); Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 206 N.W.2d 347 (1973) (findings necessary where the record is not clear and facts are in We have examined the record in the case before us an......
-
Nastrom v. Nastrom
...we are provided with no sufficient basis for computing the property's value by any method other than guesswork. In Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 206 N.W.2d 347 (1973), the Minnesota Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, remanded a similar case for the making of findings of fact in ......
-
Metropolitan Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Adams
...examining whether evidence sustains findings and findings sustain conclusions of law on appeal from a judgment. Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 206 N.W.2d 347 (1973); Cool v. Hubbard, 293 Minn. 349, 199 N.W.2d 510 Here the evidence sustains the findings that were made and those finding......
-
State v. Oanes
...of findings, provided that the record is reasonably clear and the facts are not seriously disputed and quoting Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478, 206 N.W.2d 347, 348 (1973), as authority). Under these circumstances, Oanes's argument is actually whether the evidence is sufficient to s......