Thus, appellant did not meet her burden of establishing that respondent dissipated or misused marital assets. We conclude the district court acted within its discretion in not crediting respondent's share of marital assets with the policy poceeds and dividends. Appellant also alleges the cash value of the parties' life insurance policies was significantly reduced during the dissolution proceedings. Although appellant alleges the district court did not address this issue, by denying appellant's motion for amended findings the district court ruled against appellant. Further, we conclude the district court acted within its discretion because appellant again failed to meet her burden of establishing that respondent concealed or dissipated marital assets.
District courts have broad discretion in the division of debts.
The district court, in denying appellant's request for reimbursement, appeared to have construed its temporary order to mean that respondent was responsible for all existing debts incurred prior to August 1, 1994. A district court's construction of its own decree has great weight on appeal. Based on this finding, the court concluded appellant was not entitled to reimbursement. Because the record supports the district court's finding, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in finding appellant was not entitled to reimbursement. Affirmed as modified and remanded.