This opinion will be unpublished and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

C5-96-1322

In Re the Marriage of:

Barbara Ann Hindermann, petitioner,

Respondent,

vs.

Leo Albert Hindermann,

Appellant.

Filed March 4, 1997

Affirmed

Randall, Judge

Crow Wing County District Court

File No. F8932000

Steven A. Hanson, 1220 Norwest Bank Building, 175 North 27th Street, Billings, MT 59101 (for Respondent)

John H. Erickson, Erickson Law Offices, 319 South Sixth Street, P.O. Box 525, Brainerd, MN 56401 (for Appellant)

Considered and decided by Norton, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Randall, Judge.

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

RANDALL, Judge

Appellant claims the district court erred when it valued and divided the parties' property as part of its dissolution judgment. Respondent seeks leave of this court to allow the district court to correct a clerical error in its amended supplemental judgment. Both parties seek attorney fees for this appeal. We affirm the district court's property division, deny respondent's motion, and decline to grant attorney fees for this appeal.

D E C I S I O N

I.

A district court's division of property as part of a dissolution action is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Servin v. Servin, 345 N.W.2d 754, 758 (Minn. 1984). Courts must make a just and equitable division of marital property. Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1 (1996). Just and equitable does not necessarily mean mathematically equal. Nazar v. Nazar, 505 N.W.2d 628, 635 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1993).

Appellant argues that the values the district court found for several items of property were clearly erroneous. In essence, he argues that the court should have adopted his values rather than respondent's. However, "[a] trial court's valuation should be upheld if it falls within the range of credible estimates * * * ." Maher v. Maher, 393 N.W.2d 190, 193 (Minn. App. 1986) (citation omitted). Here, the range of values was provided by the parties and the court as finder of fact had discretion to adopt those values it found most credible. See Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988) (deferring to trial court's assessment of credibility).

Appellant also argues that the district court should have divided the marital property according to his requests made at trial. However, using the district court's valuations, appellant's share of marital property exceeded respondent's. See Kennedy v. Kennedy, 403 N.W.2d 892, 897 (Minn. App. 1987) (evidence must be viewed in favor of trial court's findings). Under these circumstances, appellant cannot establish that the district court's division of the parties' property was unjust or inequitable.

II.

During the pendency of this appeal, respondent discovered what she characterized as a clerical error in the district court's amended supplemental judgment and moved for leave of this court to remand the judgment pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.01, which provides:

Clerical mistakes in judgments * * * may be corrected by the court at any time upon its own initiative or on the motion of any party * * * . During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.

Respondent argues that the amended findings provided by herself in her post-trial motion, and adopted by the district court, failed to achieve an equal property division. She now claims the district court's division of property was a clerical error.

We disagree. The district court fully considered respondent's motion for amended findings. We conclude the district court's adoption of respondent's proposed findings was not a clerical error. Accordingly, we deny respondent's motion. See Egge v. Egge, 361 N.W.2d 485, 488-90 (Minn. App. 1985) (where court fully considered and adopted parties' proposed division of property, failure to achieve equal division was not clerical error and not subject to relief under rule 60.01).

III.

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

Affirmed.