OPINION
This appeal is brought by appellant husband in a marriage dissolution action contesting the trial court’s division of the marital property. The sole issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in the division and valuation of the marital assets and in the distribution of shares in a closely held corporation. We affirm.
Verdell Gulbranson and Keith Gulbran-son were married on July 29, 1951. Kеith Gulbranson became a John Deere farm and industrial equipment retail dealer a few years later. He operated the business as Gulbranson Equipment, Inc. Verdell Gul-branson’s entire married life was spent as a mother and homemaker. Shе also performed various tasks for the business, such as varnishing, staining, and mopping floors, washing windows and painting farm machinery.
The trial court dissolved the marriage on June 30, 1983. In addition to awarding maintenance to the respondent, the trial court divided the marital property. Under the trial court’s valuation of the property, appellant received in exсess of $105,000 of the marital property, while the respondent received in excess of $83,000.
Minnesota law requires a “just аnd equitable division of the marital property 1 * L” Minn.Stat. § 518.58 (1982). The trial court’s division will not be set aside unless it is clearly an abuse of discretion.
Taylor v. Taylor,
The appellant’s contentions primarily relate to the value assigned certain property divided in thе award. He argues that, according to his calculations, the respondent was allocated far in excess оf 50 percent of the property and hence the trial court abused its discretion.
The appellant’s initial contention is that the family home which he received in the award is encumbered by more than $75,000, not by $31,000 as the trial court found. The аppellant cites no support for his allegation. The record reveals that the appellant’s figures include a second mortgage on the home which secures corporate obligations of Gulbranson Equipment, Inc. The triаl court properly considered this a corporate debt of Gulbranson Equipment, Inc., rather than a charge аgainst the equity of the family home.
The appellant next claims that he made a payment of $14,000 against the debt on a farm awarded to the respondent while this case was pending before the trial court. He neglected to inform the trial court of this payment, and it was not considered in the property division. Minn.Stat. § 518.64 (1982) provides that property divisions are final. The appellant had an opportunity to request that the trial court amend its findings.
See
Rule 52.02 of Minn.R.Civ.P.;
In re LaBelle’s Trust,
The appellant’s third argument is that the trial court abused its discretion in relying on an expert appraiser’s valuation instead of the appellant’s opinion on the value of a lake home. It is elementary that the opinion оf an experienced appraiser regarding valuation questions may be given greater weight by the trial court than the lay opinion of an interested party.
Finally, the appellant contends it was an abuse of discretion to transfer to the respondent shares of stock in Gulbranson *717 Equipment, Inc. The court’s allocation left the appellant with 50 рercent of the stock, and the respondent with 46.6 percent of the stock (including 3.3 percent which she previously owned).
The appellant argues that the award places him in the dilemma of giving the respondent a forced sharе of his future work.
See Rogers v. Rogers,
Although the fоrced admittance of an unwelcome ex-spouse to the affairs of a closely held corporatiоn may be disruptive,
Castonguay,
We are sympathetic to appellant’s business problems and are aware that his business has an uncertain future. However, the appellant has not suggested any alternative to the trial court’s division of the shаres. The value of the corporation in its present financial condition is difficult to establish, particularly without expert testimony. The record supports the trial court’s determination that the only practical way of dividing the business’ value equitably was to transfer the shares.
In a complicated property division, substantial deference must be given to the trial court’s findings because “exactitude is not possible.”
Rogers,
Affirmed.