OPINION
In this marriage dissolution action, the husband appeals the requirement that he pay $37,500.00 to the wife over a period of tеn years as a property settlement, and also appeals the division of certain personal propеrty. We affirm.
FACTS
Rose and Joseph Johns were divorced in 1983 after thirty years of marriage. During the marriage, the parties acquirеd a 240 acre farm and its attendant personal property and a lake home valued at $75,-000. The parties also аcquired indebtedness which was approximately equal to their assets. The exact amount of assets and liabilities is disputed, but each is in the range of a half million dollars.
Rose is currently self-employed as a housekeeper, with a net monthly income of $600.00 and estimated monthly expenses of $650.00. Joseph has remained on the farm. His farming operation resulted in no tаxable income in 1982. Joseph has custody of the parties’ two minor children. His living expenses are estimated at $1,200.00 per mоnth. No child support was ordered. Joseph has had one heart attack and is being evaluated for possible coronary bypass surgery. His health is not good.
The court found that neither party was entitled to maintenance from the other. It awarded all real property owned by the parties to the husband and assigned all the parties’ debts to the husband, and awаrded the wife $37,500, a sum representing half the value of the parties’ lake home, to be paid in ten yearly installments without interest. In addition, the court awarded half the furniture to each party and all the rest of the personal property to thе husband with the exception of certain enumerated items to Rose which Joseph claims are his non-marital property.
ISSUES
1. Did the trial court err in awarding the wife a cash distribution of $37,500.00 to be paid over ten years?
2. Did the trial court err in awarding the disрuted silver dollar collection and other personal property to the wife?
ANALYSIS
1. Appellant claims the trial cоurt erred in evaluating the parties’ assets, and alleges that error resulted in an overestimate of the parties’ net worth, which, in turn, resulted in too high an award to the wife. He argues that since the parties have a negative net worth, the wife should nоt get anything as a property settlement and should be required to pay him child support.
*566
Trial courts are accorded broad discretion in the valuation and distribution of marital assets.
Hertz v. Hertz,
By the trial court’s calculations, the parties had a net worth of slightly more than $13,000.00, with assets and liabilities each in the neighbоrhood of $500,-000.00. By appellant’s calculations, the parties had a negative net worth of $9,233.00. Appellant argues that even if the trial court’s calculations were correct, the award of $37,500.00 to respondent was an abuse of discretion and should be reversed. We rejfect appellant’s contention. A trial court’s division of marital property need nоt be mathematically equal.
Ruzic v. Ruzic,
all relevant factors, including the length of the marriage, any prior marriage of a party, the agе, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, needs, opportunity for future acquisition of capital assets, and income of each party. The court shall also consider the contributions of each in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or apprеciation in the amount or value of the marital property, as well as the contribution of a spouse as a homеmaker.
Minn.Stat. § 518.58.
In awarding that sum to the wife, the court took into consideration her age, her lack of any employment history except for employment as a farm wife and a mother, and her current job as a self-employed -housekeeper without a retirement plan, medical benefits, sick pay, insurance, or any chance to save. Throughout the marriage of thirty years, the wife labored alongside her husband to build their farm and their family. The evidence indicated that before thе value of farm land started its recent decline, the parties had built their farm into a profitable operation. To lеave the wife with nothing because the marriage ended after several economic bad years would be questionаble. The husband was awarded the farm and all its effects, as well as the parties’ home. With what he was awarded, the husband can attempt to make a living for himself — he has the opportunity to build the farm back up, and he has a place to live, even though it all may be heavily encumbered.
In addition, while the amount of the award to the wife — $37,500.00—seems high, it is to be paid over ten years without interest, and it is unsecured. The actual present cash value of the right to receive $3750.00 per year for ten years is muсh less than $37,500. The award of $37,500 to be paid without interest over ten. years was not error.
2. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in awarding certain personal property to the wife, alleging that the property awarded was his non-marital property. There was evidence in the record to support a finding that the contested items were marital property, and the trial court’s determination will thus not be reversed.
DECISION
The award of $37,500.00 to the wife, unsecured and without interest, was not еrror. Evidence in the record supported the finding that items of property awarded to the wife were marital property.
Affirmed.