David's current practice, Stufft Law Firm, is an asset of David and we have said that the debts of a business are the responsibility of whomever has the interest in that business. Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence to support the court's distribution of debt and that evidence has not been misapprehended nor do we have any conviction that a mistake has been made. We therefore conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in assigning the majority of the debt to David. However, we direct the District Court to reconsider its equitable distribution of the assets and debts of the marital estate given that we have remanded to the court its determination of value for the Stufft Law Firm and the Stufft Farm stock. We review a district court's award of maintenance to determine if the findings of fact are clearly erroneous.
Maintenance is provided for in Sec.
As stated in Issue 3, there is no evidence to support the court's finding of income relating to David's legal practice and as a result the value of David's law practice is in question. Furthermore, David claims that he resigned from his position as farm manager, thus depleting his past income. If a past employment position remains available, we have said that a court may impute that income to a party in a divorce proceeding. Nonetheless, there is no evidence in the record as to whether the farm manager position was available to David at the time of the dissolution. While Mayla presented evidence of need until such time as she becomes employed, the court's award of maintenance is not consistent with evidence of David's financial resources.