Although appellant argues that he wants half the dishes and one leather couch, there is no indication that the order was inequitable. The trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in distributing household furnishings. The trial court ordered the parties' marital homestead sold. Appellant concedes that the home was marital property but challenges the court's valuation of this lakeside home and of two dock sections he took. He also challenges the court's order that he contribute to the costs of selling the home.
Property valuation is a finding of fact.
The record also supports the trial court's valuation of the two dock sections. Sale Costs Appellant argues that he should not be responsible for costs incurred in selling the homestead or that he should at least not have to contribute to unjustified expenditures. Appellant argues that respondent should bear sole responsibility for all expenses relating to the marital homestead because the court allowed her to stay in the home. But sums spent to improve the marital home are considered marital debt when distributing marital property. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by equally distributing the costs of preparing the marital home for sale.