Respondent notes that the courts have recognized the difficulty of finding a self-employed farmer's net monthly income. While we do not disagree with respondent's observation, the cases she cites involve difficulty in estimating the income figure against which the statutory deductions are allowed and to which the tax tables are applied. Here, the trial court found such a figure but, without explaining why, neither specifically addressed the statutory deductions nor applied the tax tables as recommended by statute. Appellant claims that the trial court erred by not awarding him nonmarital interests in the farm and cattle. The trial court has broad discretion to divide property.
Property acquired by either spouse during a marriage is presumptively marital.
Whether property is nonmarital is a legal question we review de novo but the trial court's findings of fact underlying a ruling on whether property is nonmarital are not set aside unless clearly erroneous. The nonmarital nature of property must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant claims that respondent fraudulently induced appellant's father to put respondent's name on the documents conveying the farm by threatening to divorce appellant if her name were not put on those documents and by promising to put appellant's name on her assets. We find no merit in appellant's argument that the trial court erred in not relying on parol evidence appellant presented regarding the farm conveyance. Appellant also claims that respondent's representations constituted an agreement for support and that parol evidence is admissible to show consideration for a deed when the consideration is an oral agreement for support.