This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C9-96-996

In Re the Marriage of:

Ronald Alan Doriott, petitioner,

Respondent,

vs.

Chantal Marie Doriott,

Appellant.

Filed December 10, 1996

Affirmed

Davies, Judge

Washington County District Court

File No. F795220

Michael C. Black, Michael C. Black Law Office, Ltd., 265 W. Seventh St., Suite 201, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for Respondent)

Kevin T. Slator, Hebert, Welch, Humphreys, Grindberg, & Miller, P.A., 20 N. Lake St., Suite 301, Forest Lake, MN 55025 (for Appellant)

Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Randall, Judge, and Davies, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

DAVIES, Judge

This is an appeal from a judgment of dissolution determining child support, dividing property, and denying maintenance. We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

1. The district court acted within its discretion by calculating child support based on respondent's current net income, reflecting reduced overtime received at his current job. Beede v. Law, 400 N.W.2d 831, 835-36 (Minn. App. 1987) (current income, not earning capacity, controls unless it is impracticable to determine income or income is unjustifiably self-limited). Viewing the evidence in favor of the court's findings, the finding that respondent's new job was a bona fide career change is not clearly erroneous. See Kennedy v. Kennedy, 403 N.W.2d 892, 897 (Minn. App. 1987) (evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to trial court); Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 (district court findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous).

2. Appellant argues that respondent did not sufficiently trace his nonmarital property to the current marital home. Tracing is established when the party claiming nonmarital status shows by a preponderance of the evidence that an asset was acquired in exchange for nonmarital property. Ward v. Ward, 453 N.W.2d 729, 732 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. June 6, 1990). Even if the parties cashed in some accumulated equity from their second house before it was sold, the court could nevertheless find that respondent's original nonmarital equity remained and was subsequently reinvested in the current marital home. Viewing the evidence in favor of the court's finding, the finding is not clearly erroneous. Kennedy, 403 N.W.2d at 897.

3. The district court denied maintenance, finding that appellant was employed throughout most of the marriage and was capable of achieving self-sufficiency through full-time employment. The court acted within its discretion. Erlandson v. Erlandson, 318 N.W.2d 36, 38 (Minn. 1982) (courts have wide discretion in determination of maintenance award).

4. The record supports the court's decision to use the date of separation to determine marital debt. Appellant failed to establish how the district court's division of debt was an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.