may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In Re the Marriage of:
Joan Mary Boser, petitioner,
Colin Joseph Boser,
Filed May 20, 1997
Affirmed as modified
Toussaint, Chief Judge
Morrison County District Court
File No. F6941186
Joan Mary Boser, Box 86, Flensburg, MN 56328 (Pro se respondent)
Lynne M. Ridgway, Hall & Byers, P.A., 1010 West St. Germain, Suite 600, St. Cloud, MN 56301 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, Mansur, Judge.[*]
On appeal from a dissolution judgment and the trial court's order denying a motion for new trial, appellant Colin Joseph Boser challenges the trial court's calculation of respondent Joan Mary Boser's child support obligation and valuation of his nonmarital interest in the parties' mobile home and their farm partnership. Because appellant's child support obligation should have been calculated by using the guideline percentage for four children, we modify the dissolution judgment. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in valuing the parties' property, we affirm on that issue.
Appellant argues the trial court erred when it determined respondent's child support obligation to be $235.60 per month, claiming this amount was calculated by using the guideline percentage for three children, rather than four. The record shows that respondent's child support obligation should have been calculated by using the guideline percentage for four children. The trial court's use of the guideline percentage for three children was a clerical error. See Johnson v. Johnson, 379 N.W.2d 215, 218 (Minn. App. 1985) (defining "clerical errors").
Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.01 provides that a court may correct clerical errors at any time on its own initiative. We, therefore, multiply respondent's net income of $812.53 by 33%, the child support guideline percentage amount for four children, and modify the trial court order by determining respondent's child support to be $268.13 per month ($812.53 x 33%). See Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5 (1996) (child support guidelines).
Classification of Property as Marital or Nonmarital
A trial court has broad discretion in evaluating and dividing marital property in a dissolution action. Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn. 1984) (citing Faus v. Faus, 319 N.W.2d 408, 412 (Minn. 1982)). There must be a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on the record before this court will find that the trial court abused this discretion. Id. (citing Holmes v. Holmes, 255 Minn. 270, 274, 96 N.W.2d 547, 551 (1959)).
Property acquired during a marriage by either spouse is presumed to be marital property regardless of whether the title is held individually or by both spouses. Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 5 (1996). A party asserting that a particular asset is nonmarital must prove that assertion by a preponderance of the evidence. Freking v. Freking, 479 N.W.2d 736, 738 (Minn. App. 1992) (citing Kottke v. Kottke, 353 N.W.2d 633, 636 (Minn. App. 1984) review denied (Minn.Dec. 20, 1984)). We must affirm the trial court's findings of fact in support of a conclusion that an asset is marital or nonmarital unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Burns v. Burns, 466 N.W.2d 421, 423 (Minn. App. 1991).
A. Mobile Home
Appellant argues the trial court erred by not awarding him a nonmarital interest in the parties' mobile home because he used $10,000 that he received in a wrongful death settlement as a partial payment for the mobile home.
The trial court found that from the $10,000 appellant received in a wrongful death settlement, $4,504.92 was used to pay the balances on loans for his premarital mobile home, while the remainder was deposited into the parties' joint account. Three years later, funds from the parties' joint account were used to buy the current mobile home. Because (1) the settlement monies were commingled with marital assets in the joint account, (2) there was a delay of three years between when the settlement funds were deposited into the account and when the mobile home was purchased, and (3) there was no evidence that the proceeds from the sale of the premarital mobile home were used to purchase the current mobile home, the trial court concluded that the parties had an equal marital interest in the property.
The record supports the trial court's conclusion. Appellant has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he has a nonmarital interest of $10,000 in the parties' mobile home. Appellant only stated that he received $4,000 for the trade-in value of his pre-marital home. He did not present evidence to the court that these monies were used to purchase the current mobile home. Appellant also failed to address the other findings of the trial court. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding the parties had an equal marital interest in the mobile home.
B. Farm Partnership
Appellant argues the trial court erred in its calculation of the marital and nonmarital value of appellant's interest in the farm partnership. Appellant contends that because the trial court's calculation was not supported by any testimony at trial it should be reversed.
The trial court concluded appellant has a 33 1/3 % marital interest and a 6 2/3 % nonmarital interest in the farm partnership. In exchange for the marital interest in the farm, appellant executed a $100,000 promissory note, which as of the trial date was worth $184,000, including interest. The court determined that this note, executed to acquire a marital asset, was a marital liability and legally enforceable. In light of the foregoing, the trial court then relied on the reports and testimony of Dennis F. Bacon, a certified public accountant, to conclude that appellant's marital portion of the farm partnership was $38,897.
Valuations by the trial court will be sustained if they fall within the limits of credible estimates by competent witnesses. Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145, 229 N.W.2d 42,44 (1975). Only when the valuation is clearly erroneous on the record will the lower court's decision be disturbed. Id. Because there was a competent witness at trial who estimated appellant's marital share of the farm to be $38,897, the trial court did not err in its calculation of the marital and nonmarital value of appellant's interest in the farm partnership.
Affirmed as modified.
[ ]* Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.