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:
Katherine Marie Hamilton,
a/k/a Katherine Marie Cox, petitioner,
James Thorrot Cox,
Filed January 28, 1997
Koochiching County District Court
File No. F0953
Steven A. Nelson, 210 Fourth Avenue, International Falls, MN 56649 (for Appellant)
Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Foley, 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.
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.
We decline to award attorney fees to either party for this appeal.
[ ]* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.