[¶ 1] Sаndra Adams appeals and John Adams cross-appeals from a district court order calculating and dividing profits earned by the parties’ jointly-owned businesses. The order also requires her to reimburse him for payments he made relating to the Radisson Hotel renovation and pay onе-half of the parties’ 2012 taxes. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
I
[¶2] The district court granted the parties a divorce in April 2013 and after an October 2013 trial issued an amended supplemental judgment in June 2014 dividing the parties’ complex marital estate valued at approximately $46,500,000. Sandra Adams appealed the decision and this Court affirmed in
Adams v. Adams,
[¶ 3] The judgment dividing the marital estate required the parties to equally share the profits of them jointly-owned businesses from April 2, 2013, through January 2014. The parties disagreed over the profits generated from the businesses during that time. Each party hired an accountant to calculate the business profits. The parties’ profit calculations differed by approximately $1.5 million in cash retained by the businesses due to depreciation expenses. John Adams’ accountant deducted the $1.5 million from his profit calculation. Sandra Adams’ accountant in-
[IT 4] After a hearing where the accountants testified the district court used John Adams’ profit calculation and found the parties’ businesses generated net profits of approximately $1,134,000 from January 2013 through January 2014. The court also found John Adams made tax payments, credit сard payments and payments relating to the Radisson Hotel renovation on Sandra Adams’ behalf. After crediting Sandra Adams for her share of the profits the court ordered her to reimburse John Adams $342,191 for payments made on her behalf. ■
II
[¶ 5] Sandra Adams and John Adams each raise issues on apрeal and cross-appeal regarding the district court’s determination of the parties’ business profits. Sandra Adams argues the court erred by failing to add back non-cash deductions for depreciation and amortization. John Adams argues the court erred by including profits earned in Januаry, February and March 2013.
[¶ 6] The district court’s determination of business profits are a finding of fact subject to' the clearly erroneous standard of review.
See, e.g., Keller v. Bolding,
[¶7] Paragraph 43 of the amended supplemental divorce judgment requires the parties to share the business profits:
“Consistent with the parties’ interim agreement, for the period April 2, 2013 through January 31, 2014, the combined profits or losses resulting from the parties’ jointly owned business enterprises shall be shared equally, making aрpropriate allowances for the monthly draws each party has received pursuant to paragraph 1 of that agreement. The parties shall be expected to agree as to the selection of any accountant required to make the necessary computations. If they áre unable to agree, they may request that the court designate or appoint an accountant to be used for this purpose.” -
. A ,
[¶8] Sandra Adams argues the district court erred in determining the parties’ business profits by failing to add back non-cash deductions for depreсiation and amortization. She asserts John Adams controlled the business’ finances and it is inequitable for him to' benefit from the approximately $1.5 million in cash that he decided to retain as depreciation expenses.
[¶ 9] The judgment does not define “profits” or state how they are to be calculated. Each party hired an accountant to calculate the business profits from April 2, 2013, through January 31, 2014. John Adams’ accountant, Steven Johnson, calculated $1,047,471 in net profits for 2013 by reviewing the income tax returns of each entity. Johnson testified he multiplied that amount by nine-twelfths to reаch a net profit of $785,603 from April 2, 2013, through December 31, 2013. He testified depreciation and amortization are deductible expenses in calculating net- profits.
[¶ 10] Adams Development Company’s controller, Michael Fritz, calсulated $86,619 in net profit for January 2014 after deducting depreciation and estimated taxes. He testified he derived this figure from the accounting system used by the Adams’ businesses.
[¶ 11] Sandra Adams’ accountant, Jerry Bremer, calculated $2,694,079 in net profits for 2013. He also reviewed the income tax returns of eаch entity as a starting point in his calculation. Bremer testified his calculation added back approximately $1.5 million in depreciation expenses -because it was more equitable to the parties. He testified John Adams was the sole beneficiary of the cash retained by thе non-cash depreciation expense because he controlled the business’ finances. -
[¶ 12] The district court used Johnson’s and Fritz’s figures to determine net profits. The major difference between the parties’ calculations is the treatment of the depreciation expenses. Johnson and Fritz did not include depreciation in their calculations. Using an equitable approach, Bremer included depreciation in his calculation.- Because the judgment did not define profits -or state how they were to be calculated, the court, made a finding on the business’ рrofits on the basis, of the evidence presented,
[¶ 13] The district court’s decision to use figures deducting depreciation expenses is supported by the evidence and is within the range of evidence presented.
See Mertz v. Mertz,
B
[¶ 14] On cross-appeal ■ John Adams argues the district court incorrectly determined profits under the amended supplemental divorce judgment by including profits earned in January, February and March 2013. We agree.
[¶ 15] The district court used Johnson’s 2013 profit calculation of $1,047,471, which included profits from January, February and March 2013. The court did not multiply that amount by nine-twelfths as Johnson did to calculate profits for three-quarters of 2013.
[¶ 16] The amended supplemental divorce judgment states profits shall be shared “for the period April 2, 2013 through January 31, 2014.” The district court stated its decision to include January, February and March 2013 profits wаs consistent with the parties’ interim order. The amended supplemental judgment vacated and replaced the interim order. The court’s decision to include January, February and March 2013 profits is not consistent with the judgment we affirmed on the first appeal. Adams,
HI
[¶ 17] Sandra Adams argues the district court erred by ordering her to
[¶ 18] Paragraph 16 of the amended supplemental judgment states in part:
“Sandra is awarded the entirety of the business being operated as the ‘Radis-son Hotel Fargo,’ together with floors 15 and 16 of the building known as the ‘Radisson Tower.’ This property will hereafter be collectively referred to as the ‘Radisson.’ ... The award to Sandra is free and clear of any right, title or interest on the part of John, Adams Investment Limited Partnership, or AKA Hotel Ventures, Ltd., аnd it extinguishes any liability on Sandra’s part to reimburse Adams Investment Limited Partnership for any payments made by it in connection with the acquisition, operation or renovation of the Radisson. The award to Sandra includes all furnishings, fixtures, equipment, accounts receivable, bank accounts and оther forms of tangible or intangible property that are part of the Radisson. This is intended as a transfer of the entire Rad-isson business as a going concern. John shall make the required' transfers to Sandra in his capacity as a general partner of Adams Investment Limited Partnership.”
[¶ IS] Between April 2, 2013, and the October 2013 trial John Adams paid $450,000 relating to the Radisson remodel. The district court’s order addressed these payments: , , .
“25, After the April 2, 2013, valuation date, John made payments for the remodeling of the Radisson Hotel which totaled $450,000.00 from monies in an account ultimately awarded to him. The Radisson Hotel, which was valued at a date later than all the other assets including the account awarded to John, was awarded to Sandra, Sandra received benefit from those payments as the hotel valuation was established in its remodeled condition and free of debt.
“26. Paragrаph . 16 of the Trial Court’s Amended Supplemental Judgment states'in part: ‘... The award to Sandra is free and clear of any right, title or interest on the part of John, Adams Investment Limited Partnership, or AKA Hotel Ventures, Ltd., and it extinguishes any liability on Sandra’s part to reimburse Adams Investment Limited Partnership for any paymеnts made by it in.connection with the acquisition, operation or renovation of the Radisson...’
“27. The Court finds this reference to eliminating any liability on Sandra’s part' to- reimburse Adams Investment Limited Partnership to refer to the amount-of money the.Radisson Hotel ' owed to John and Sandra or their variоus entities oil' the April 2, 2013, valuation date,”
The court found that because the trial judge had no knowledge of the payments made after the valuation date and sought to award equivalent assets to the parties, Sandra Adams should reimburse John Adams $225,000 for the Radisson remodel payments.
[¶ 20] In Sandra Adams’ first appeal,
Adams,
[¶ 21] John Adams presented additional evidence and the district court made additional findings relating to paragraph 16 of the amended supplemental judgment in a proceeding under paragraph 48 of the judgment. John Adams presented this evidence after the judgment was entered and subsequently affirmed. John Adams testified the payments totaling $450,000 were made before trial and he had the information about the payments at the time of trial, Although it appears he had the opportunity, he did not move to reopen the record to present this evidence before the amended supplemental judgment was entered.
See Larson v. Larson,
rv
[¶ 22] Sandra Adams argues she should not have to pay one-half of the parties’ 2012 taxes.
[¶ 23] Under the amended supplemental judgment the parties are required to equally share any joint tax liability. The district court found John Adams paid $277,890 for the parties’ 2012 federal and state taxes from moneys awarded to him by the court. The court ordered Sandra Adams to pay him one-half of the 2012 taxes. John Adams testified the taxes had not been calculated by April 2013 and were paid after trial in October 2013. He testified he paid the 2012 taxes out of his personal checking account. On cross-examination, when asked if he had proof the taxes were paid from his personal account, John Adams clarified and stated, “Actually, at that time I think it was .a joint account.” Sandra Adams’ counsel again asked if he paid the taxes out of a joint account and John Adams responded, ‘Tes. Which Sandi had access to.” Copies of the checks that paid the 2012 taxes include both John and Sandra Adams’ nаmes. ,
[¶ 24] John Adams paid the 2012 taxes shortly after trial and months before entry of the amended supplemental judgment distributing the marital estate. The parties jointly owned the checking account when the taxes were paid. A payment from a jointly-owned checking account to which both parties had access means both John Adams and Sandra Adams paid the 2012 taxes. The evidence does not support the district court’s finding that John Adams paid the parties’ 2012 taxes from
V
[¶ 25] The order is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for a recalculation of the 2013 profits and the amounts owed to each party consistent with this decision.