Jeffrey J. Haberkorn, Haberkorn Law Offices, Ltd., 122 Second Street N.W., Aitkin, MN 56431 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Crippen, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Kalitowski, Judge.

CRIPPEN, Judge

Appellant Milo Peterson disputes a trial court determination that the parties had total marital property of $32,526, which the trial court divided equally between the parties. Appellant contends that the marital property totaled only $18,435, if account were taken for debt that remains as his burden and which was classified as non-marital property by the trial court. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

The debts that appellant contends are non-marital are in two parts. Part is the balance on a $5,000 loan, incurred to improve the home that was subsequently awarded to appellant. The rest of the debt represents the balance due on a mortgage obligation that the parties originally incurred primarily to pay-off appellant's pre-marital debts of $15,578.

The marital debt issue raised by appellant fails for three reasons. First, even if the marital estate were decreased to $18,434, as suggested by appellant, the record reflects no error in the ultimate determination of the trial court that respondent Lucretia Peterson be awarded the bulk of this small estate. See Hein v. Hein, 366 N.W.2d 646, 649 (Minn. App. 1985) (a trial court has broad discretion regarding the division of property in marriage dissolutions and will be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion). It is significant in this respect that the debt in question is secured by mortgages on the home awarded appellant, that $4,844 of the debt was on a loan made for improvement of that home, and that the initial purpose of the remainder of the debt was for the financing of appellant's personal debt. Moreover, the trial court found that the value of the home awarded appellant increased from $40,000 at the time of the marriage to $105,000 at the time of the dissolution, in part due to respondent's efforts. Although the intangible nature of these efforts precluded the trial court from considering them when determining the martial value of the homestead, it was within the discretion of the court to consider the value of these efforts when determining the equities of the situation and the property award due respondent. See Riley v. Riley, 369 N.W.2d 40, 43 (Minn. App. 1985) (noting that an equitable division of marital property is not necessarily an equal division), review denied (Minn. Aug. 29, 1985).

Second, because appellant has furnished only a partial transcript, and because the classification of debt as marital or non-marital involves evidentiary matters, this court has an inadequate record to determine if there were trial court errors. See Mesenbourg v. Mesenbourg, 538 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Minn. App. 1995) (appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record) (citation omitted).

Finally, although appellant sought a reduction of respondent's property award in post-trial motions, the record does not demonstrate that the argument presented to this court is the same as that presented the trial court. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (a reviewing court will not consider matters not argued or considered in the court below).

Affirmed.