Opinion ID: 1444885
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Valuation of the Cold Bay Property.

Text: Donald contends that when the trial court valued the Cold Bay property at $30,000 and awarded it to him, the court failed to recognize that Donald still owed $17,000 for the lot and that he had paid some $7,000 to $8,000 per year for the lot during the period after the Decree of Divorce and before the Final Judgment herein. Donald asserts that the court abused its discretion when it ignored his testimony regarding the amount of the debt and the payments. [4] Donald's testimony at trial regarding the Cold Bay property was imprecise. Donald stated, I paid the  I think it was $5,000 down. And then I've been paying roughly, I think, $7,000 or $8,000 a year. That's on the interest and principal. And I just found out the other day, I believe I owe $17,000 or something on it yet. In contrast, Appendix A to Donald's Trial Brief values the Cold Bay lot at $30,000 without disclosing any related encumbrance. A trial court's determination of the value of property and the existence and amount of encumbrances is a factual inquiry and should be reversed only if clearly erroneous. Richmond v. Richmond, 779 P.2d 1211, 1213 (Alaska 1989). The court's findings regarding the valuation of the lot are supported by evidence. We will not say that the trial court clearly erred when it adopted one of Donald's representations over the other.