We, therefore, modify the division of property with respect to this asset. She contends the trial court improperly relied on her prehearing statement to set this amount and that no evidence was presented at trial to corroborate this figure. She further contends it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to fail to consider the tax consequences of this award. The trial court properly valued the property. Because wife cites no legal authority to support any of her other contentions, she has not met her burden of affirmatively showing error.
Wife contends the trial court failed to consider husband's dissipation of assets.
We conclude, therefore, that the lost real estate is not a dissipated asset for which wife must be compensated and that the transferred IDS monies were used for the necessities of life. She further argues that husband may have had some tax benefit from this apportionment and that husband alone received income from some of the assets on which he paid bills. We cannot say the trial court improperly apportioned the couple's debt. The apportionment of marital debt, though not required, is treated and reviewed in the same manner as division of assets. Furthermore, as we previously stated, a trial court may not speculate about possible tax consequences.