Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Elan snowmobile 700 700 Morgan promissory note (4/14/98) 10,000 10,000 Power tools 7,000 7,000 Violin and home furnishings 3,000 3,000 IRA account no. 1 5,200 5,200 IRA account no. 2 3,400 3,400 Reimburse Katie’s Galaxy fund (5,700) (5,700) Home equity loan (29,810) (29,810) Condominium fees (3,660) (3,660) Personal loan (5.500) (5.500) VISA credit card debt (Í, 500) (4.500) Loan from Andre Drouin (1.500) (1.500) TOTAL MARITAL NET WORTH 53,078 [¶ 37] A court must take into account “[t]he value of the property set apart to each spouse” as part of its disposition of the property. 19-A M.R.S.A. § 953(1)(B) (1998). Here, the overall distribution of the assets is unbalanced, which in some circumstances amounts to an abuse of discretion. See Beattie v. Beattie, 650 A.2d 950, 952 (Me.1994) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). The court’s judgment does 
 Holding statements: (A) holding property settlement to be contractual obligation from date of final judgment of divorce (B) holding that while certain elements of the divorce judgment may be supportable independently the evidence did not support the cumulative effect of the judgment (C) holding that because judgment of youngs guilt was not rendered independently of trial courts ruling on motion to suppress evidence of offense and judgment would not be supported without that evidence error not waived by plea of guilty (D) holding the judgment premature citing one case holding the judgment void and another holding the judgment irregular (E) holding that the apparent denial of the husbands request for an order compelling the wife to deliver to him the personal property he had been awarded in their divorce judgment did not constitute a modification of the original divorce judgment
Output (English): holding the judgment premature citing one case holding the judgment void and another holding the judgment irregular