This opinion will be unpublished and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

C6-96-1359

In Re the Marriage of:

Katherine Marie Hamilton,

a/k/a Katherine Marie Cox, petitioner,

Respondent,

vs.

James Thorrot Cox,

Appellant.

Filed January 28, 1997

Affirmed

Kalitowski, Judge

Koochiching County District Court

File No. F0953

Susan Mahony-St. Clair, 900 Third Street, Suite 201, International Falls, MN 56649 (for Respondent)

Steven A. Nelson, 210 Fourth Avenue, International Falls, MN 56649 (for Appellant)

Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Foley, Judge.[*]

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

KALITOWSKI, Judge

Appellant James Thorrot Cox challenges the district court's judgment of dissolution alleging that: (1) the district court undervalued respondent's share of the marital estate and failed to apportion a marital debt that was assigned to appellant, thus making the property division unjust and inequitable; and (2) the district court's award of attorney fees to respondent was an abuse of discretion. We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

We will affirm a district court's judgment of dissolution if the record supports the district court's findings and if its findings support the judgment. Erickson v. Erickson, 434 N.W.2d 284, 286 (Minn. App. 1989). The evidence must be viewed in favor of the court's findings and its findings must be sustained unless they are clearly erroneous. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 403 N.W.2d 892, 897 (Minn. App. 1987).

I.

District courts must make a just and equitable division of marital property. Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1 (1996). Just and equitable need not be mathematically equal. Ruzic v. Ruzic, 281 N.W.2d 502, 505 (Minn. 1979). We review the district court's property division under an abuse of discretion standard. Servin v. Servin, 345 N.W.2d 754, 758 (Minn. 1984).

Appellant argues that it was unjust for the court to assign a postseparation debt to him, and at the same time include as marital property the household items allegedly purchased with that debt. We disagree. First, we note that appellant failed to make a motion for amended findings providing the district court with complete and clear lists of marital and nonmarital property and values. Second, the court attempted to equally divide the parties' marital personal property and the record supports the $24,000 value used by the court, without considering those items allegedly purchased by appellant after separation.

Finally, even if the approximately $6,500 worth of household items identified by appellant were included in the court's valuation of marital property, appellant has not established that the resulting property division was an abuse of discretion. The district court concluded that an unequal division of property was equitable under the circumstances citing the following circumstances:

(1) Appellant has a higher earnings potential.

(2) Appellant will receive significant income tax advantages because Canadian law allows deductions for both child support and maintenance.

(3) Respondent will likely receive lower social security benefits because appellant is contributing to the Canadian retirement system.

We conclude the district court's unequal property division was within its discretion. See Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1 (income potential of parties is relevant factor to be considered by court when dividing marital property). Further, our review of the evidence supports the district court's other valuations and appellant's challenges to those findings are without merit.

II.

Appellant argues that in light of the unequal property division, it was error for the district court to also award respondent $7,000 in attorney fees. An award of attorney fees rests almost entirely in the discretion of the district court. Solon v. Solon, 255 N.W.2d 395, 397 (Minn. 1977). The district court's award is properly supported by its findings that respondent, regardless of the unequal property division, had a financial need and appellant had the ability to pay. Further, because the district court's findings, as a whole, indicate it considered the relevant statutory factors, we cannot say the court abused its broad discretion.

We decline to award attorney fees to either party for this appeal.

Affirmed.

[ ]* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.