Pеg (wife) and Levis (husband) Pennock were married on May 1, 1973. This was the second marriage for both. No children were born to them. The parties werе each granted a divorce from the other in October 1983. The wife appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
We find nо merit in husband’s initial claim that wife waived her right of appeal by accepting two alimony payments and $500.00 of the $2,484.27 attorney fee award. But cf., Schmuck v. Sampson,
The remaining issues are whether the trial court erred:
1) In its valuation of the parties’ Vail, Colorado, home;
2) by not including in its property listing certain transfers made by husband shortly before trial; and
3) by dividing the property on a seventy percent (husband) thirty percent (wife) basis.
I. VALUATION OF THE HOME
Wife contends the trial court’s valuation of the home was not within the range of evidence presented by the parties. The trial court valued the home at $135,000 gross.
This court will nоt disturb a property division unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused its discretion. Hersrud v. Hersrud,
II. TRANSFERS NOT INCLUDED IN ASSETS
In 1980, following an earlier divorce action, the parties signed a reconciliation agreement in which husband agreed not to encumber the home. He nevertheless did encumber the home for $25,000. The wife contends the trial court wrongfully deducted that encumbrance from the gross value prior to making the property division because 1) she received no benefit from the encumbrance; 2) including the loan reduced the net equity and thus her share in the home; 3) encumbering the home violated the agreement and defrauded her; 4) husbаnd loaned part of the money to his mother shortly before trial solely to deplete the marital estate. Husband argues on appeal that no written reconciliation agreement was introduced and that he considered the agreement ineffective once this divorce action was commenced. However, at trial husband testified he simply forgot about the agreement and that he enсumbered the
Shortly before trial, husband transferred оil field interests valued at $15,000.00 to his mother in satisfaction of a premarital debt. He also made cash transfers of $11,-100.00 to his brother, $4,200.00 to his daughter frоm a previous marriage, and $5,000.00 to a Mr. Riggs. He also loaned his mother $6,200.00. None of these items were included as assets of the marital estаte. Husband testified he was merely getting “square with the world” before the divorce.
Wife identifies these as the wrongful transfers she claims were madе to deplete the marital estate. Caldwell v. Caldwell,
The Wisconsin Court distinguished Caldwell, supra, in Markham v. Markham,
This issue was addressed in wife’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions which were refused by the trial court. The absence of any findings by the trial court on the validity of these transfers frustrates our review. If fraudulent, they should have been included in the gross marital estate. See, Muehlenthaler, supra; Abraham, supra; Caldwell, supra. Otherwise, the trial court’s result was correct, except for the homestead encumbrancе and the $6,200.00 loan to husband’s mother, which is an asset of the estate. See, Markham, supra. These transactions appear suspect in that they were: made shortly before the divorce trial; made with inadequate documentation; were transfers to blood relatives; and were payments in satisfaction of stale premarital debts. Muehlenthaler, supra. We do not, however, make determinations of fact in the first instance and accordingly remand for further findings as to whether the transfers were improperly made to deplete the marital estate. The trial court should also determine whether wife should in effect be held responsible for husband’s voluntary payment for his adult children’s education. All such factors should be cоnsidered by the trial court in determining marital assets.
III. SEVENTY PERCENT/THIRTY PERCENT DIVISION
Wife contends the trial court erred by awarding husband seventy percent and her thirty percent of the net marital estate. The court found that wife’s contribution was minimized by her frequent absences from the marital home and limited time spent in the business endeavors. She also refused to contribute any of her premarital assets to the business. Wife claims the trial court did not adequately consider other required factors, such as duration of the marriage, ages of the parties, health, ability to earn, and the vаlue of the property of each. Krage, supra; Hansen, supra. In Wolff v. Wolff,
We reverse and remand for further findings by the trial court on the nature of the transfers. Such findings, together with an enhanсed valuation of the home, and consideration of the $6,200.00 loan and education payments, will increase the net marital asset valuation. We cannot conclude, however, that a seventy/thirty percent division was an abuse of discretion.