This land was the buffer between the 1,500 acres previously sold and the land the family lived on. Around this time, husband informed wife and her brother that he had decided against developing his land, rather he intended it be preserved as it had been for the last three generations. It is apparent from this record that a large part of the strain on this marriage was that after nineteen years of hard work and struggle husband refused to use his inheritance to improve their living circumstances and wife was powerless to do anything about it. It was the judgment of the trial court that wife should receive no alimony and no interest in the inherited lands. It equitably distributed to her one-half of the auction lease and the concession stand money.
Wife is the primary residential parent.
We find no error in the lower court's ruling that wife has no marital claim on the inherited lands. The lower court found as fact that husband did not intend or make a present gift of one-half, or any lesser amount, to wife. The court also found there was no increase in the value of the inherited land through marital efforts, and there is evidence in the record to support these rulings. The standard of review of a trial court's imputation of income is whether competent substantial evidence supports the findings. He also acknowledged he could not testify about the earning capacity of wife as an artist.