*1 its discre- court did not abuse refusing respondent’s to consider determining respondent’s bonus However, obligations. the tri- respon- awarded inappropriately

al in the home- interest

dent a nonmarital Therefore, part, re- we affirm

stead. for reinstatement part and remand

verse regarding original provision decree of the homestead. . PART, IN IN REVERSED

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

PART Marriage M.

In re the of Viola Petitioner,

MARCH, Appellant, MARCH, Respondent.

Jess A.

No. C7-88-1468. Appeals of Minnesota.

Court of

Feb. Toevs, Landy, S.

Becky Skinner Robin Lambert, petitioner, Wayzata, for Larson & appellant. Roe, A. Roe Law

Thomas A. Thomas Offices, Minneapolis, respondent. *2 Considered and decided The trial court found that at time of FORSBERG, P.J., equity and CRIPPEN and trial the net in the condominiumwas NORTON, JJ., $21,200 argument. without oral and awarded that to Viola. The

net in Ridge proper- the Cedarwood $47,830, ty was which was awarded to Jess. OPINION checking The trial court valued Jess’s FORSBERG, Judge. account at on the date of trial. On appeals Viola March the trial court’s divi- 3, 1986, June one month after commence- property, sion of real action, a ment of this the balance of the and the denial of attor- July account was the bal- $9200. ney Respondent cross-ap- Jess March ance was a decrease of $6720.69. peals challenging the division of parties After separated Jess affirm. We paid per Viola the sum of week until $190 5, 1987,

March 1987. Under a tempo- June rary court, order of the trial Jess continued FACTS per week, and an $190 additional Viola and Jess March married on March for three missed $570 In addi- 12, 1942, separated May and 1975 after tion, per Viola received month in So- $309 of years marriage. began almost 34 Security cial benefits. May dissolution action in of 1986. At trial, the time of years age Viola was 63 of The trial court found that Viola has been years age; and Jess was 64 of were economically dependent upon Jess since the poor unlikely gain- health and to maintain parties’ separation. She continues to be employment ful in the future. incapable fully herself, of supporting and provide she lacks sufficient separation, After the parties agreed her reasonable needs. The trial court to refinance the which had no necessary found Viola’s monthly living ex- purchase and use the funds to penses approximately are and her $1800 housing. They substitute took out a mort- $15,261. total unsecured debt is gage $36,000 in the amount of which amounted to appraised the total 50% Jess suffers from prob- severe medical ($72,000) of the homestead at that including lems emphysema prob- and heart time. closing After costs of the refi- currently lems. Jess receives the net sum nancing, Viola received the net sum of from Security. $729 Social 737. She used proceeds as a found Jess’s monthly ex- downpayment present on her condominium penses approximately are and his $1200 Hope, residence in New $3100 total unsecured debt is $7500. debts, purchased and airline for the tickets The trial court awarded to Viola as $210 fly children to home for Christmas permanent spousal maintenance, the New from California. The remainder was used Hope condominium, and one-half of Jess’s living expenses for her over the next ten pension amounting benefits approxi- years. mately per month. The court award- At the time Viola received the refinanc- ed Jess the Ridge Cedarwood homestead funds, ing did not consult with pension other half of the benefits attorney, they and did not have a writ- $850. court made a agreement ten on division. division and ordered that each shall Although Jess resided in the Cedarwood their own Ridge homestead for a time after Viola condominium, moved to the rented the After both moved for an order home period for a to various amending individuals decree, including family members. At the time of trial court entered findings amended trial, Jess had regular resumed 17, 1988, residence June oversight which corrected an at the homestead. to include in Jess's award the balance fol- living together and awarded while were as husband checking account his This property: wife.” Id. “does lowing to the of time Jess longer together.” parties no lived Life Insurance Batsell Metropolitan Volare 1977 Plymouth Batsell, tax 1985 income refunds (Minn.Ct.App.1987), (Minn. pet. Sept. refunds 1986 income tax from Cash payment just The trial court must “make a prop division of the marital *3 $11,506.57 TOTAL parties.” erty of the Minn.Stat. 518.58 § (1986). 4356.57 IRA 3700.00 Jess’s 401K 150.00 1974 Ford property. a. Real Lincoln 1975 Honda 650 claims the trial division Viola Honda 160 Trailer of discretion. property Trotwood of real was an abuse Checking Account Jess’s awarding the the In Viola Balance $47,830equity in the condominium Jess —6228.57 Less cash payment recognized the trial court the TOTAL presumption of section 518.- the conclusive appeal from the filed an Viola 58, the does but stated that 1988, 18, April entered on and decree “after the divided the not challenging the a notice of review Jess filed the home.” equity and moved from [Viola] personal property. division to the home Only made contributions equity: the after the divided stead ISSUES the insur abuse its discre- Did the trial court 1. ance, costs. taxes and maintenance property? dividing real and tion agreement was contends that the Viola err in the valua- Did the trial court 2. old, year a ten oral it was invalid because checking account? of the tion of coun- agreement made without benefit rely discre- the court abuse its court did not 3. Did the trial sel. parties as the basis attorney fees? the agreement between by Viola unequal support the divi- finding to for its The court in- property. of the real sion ANALYSIS of section 518.- relied on the factors stead A trial court has broad 58, was not error. and this dividing property, not be overruled and will the increased value also contends Viola accept- a reasonable and if the has attributable property was of the homestead principle. DuBois v. in fact and able basis contribution of and not the appreciation, to (Minn.1983). DuBois, 335 N.W.2d proper- of the though the value Jess. Even will be property distribution An pre- Jess maintained ty appreciated, necessarily equal. though not upheld, even Viola made no contri- property. the served Weikle, v. 403 N.W.2d Weikle during the to the homestead butions (Minn.Ct.App.1987), pet. separation. of the (Minn. June property division. 1. The Personal b. (1986),the tri- cross-appeal, Minn.Stat. 518.58 Jess contends

Under On his ineq must “consider the contribution division was al court depre- acquisition, preservation, were attributa the assets each uitable because during separa appreciation in the amount or efforts solely or his own ciation to ble equal Also, property.” it the trial petitioned value of the marital tion. He The court presumed that each award. “conclusively property must be ize the excluding oversight of contribution to spouse made a substantial corrected only checking account bal- income and acquisition considering the financial resources increasing the amount of anee, thus may require one equalize parties, Jess, it not did necessary to enable the par- awarded to each total amounts carry on or to contest spouse other circumstances of Considering the ties. attorney’s fees.” and to proceeding, equitable. result is parties, this may The denial of fees abuse disparity in there is a wide discretion when Cheeking account. parties. the financial resources erred the trial court contends Worden, Worden account as of valuing Jess’s bank may (Minn.Ct.App.1987). While there argues proper final trial date. She award, disparity in the real July 1986 when for the valuation was date financial resources are no better Jess’s of $6720.49. account had a balance attorney fees was than Denial of Viola’s. the trial court took resolving dispute, of discretion. any the lack contribu into consideration to Jess’s due to his retire decreased income Jess’s discre- The trial court did not abuse its *4 separa ment, length personal property distri- tion in the real and regularly re during which time Viola bution, of a ac- valuation from Jess. spousal maintenance ceived count, attorney and in an award of the account’s balance The court determined the account on at AFFIRMED. date of trial. assignment specific CRIPPEN, Judge, dissenting. The a finding is of fact and set asset a will trial exercise of It is evident the clearly aside it is erroneous. unless Gum on the division of marital real Gummow, mow v. N.W.2d premised estate is on the erroneous notion (Minn.Ct.App.1985). party If a in a dissolu set aside that other marital assets, dissipates party marital “the appellant years before the disso- eleven dissipation shall for that be accountable began. undisputed, It proceedings lution is justifiably unless the assets are consumed however, portion of the that a substantial necessary living expenses to meet appellant aside for in 1975 were funds set parties.” Volesky Volesky, funding a not a distribution but Moreover, (Minn.Ct.App.1987). expenses. Analyzed marital does not have to assets correctly, estate after the marital real precise, only necessary it is that a invest- events 1975 included value arrived at is within in a home and an investment of ment Fick, range figures. Fick v. 375 N.W.2d 800 in a condominium. (Minn.Ct.App.1985). 873-74 Jess used ap- If the court awarded each cheeking of the funds in his account preciated value of the real estate used replacement of the roof on 1975,together since with one-half the value money his house. rest of the went property, appellant marital necessary living expenses including awarded marital real estate inter- would be expenses spousal uninsured medical $31,300,$10,100 ests of more than awarded Jess did not “con by I the trial court. Because conclude the ceal, squander or misuse marital assets.” failure to make such an award constitutes Volesky, 412 N.W.2d at 753. Under these discretion, respectfully I dis- clearly circumstances the valuation is not sent. erroneous. Attorney finally contends that the deni al of fees is error. Under Minn. (1986),

Stat. the trial court “after