Opinion ID: 2584589
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Trial Court's Post-Trial Reconsideration And Recalculation Of The Spreadsheet Requires Clarification.

Text: Richard argues that the court made an unexplained error in recalculating the assets awarded to the parties after Richard's motion for reconsideration. Specifically, he alleges that the trial court changed the figures used to calculate the value of the Caskill home without explaining the change. In its oral findings on the record, the court credited Richard's testimony that it would be necessary to make $54,977 in repairs to bring the house up to code, which would increase the house's value to $215,000. The court calculated the value in its spreadsheet by subtracting $54,977 from $215,000. Richard requested reconsideration on the grounds that the outstanding mortgage debt of $24,949 should also have been subtracted, leading to a value for the home of $135,074. The court recalculated the value to account for the mortgage, but changed the amount necessary to make repairs to $30,027 instead of the $54,977 it originally found necessary. In the court's explanation of its calculations, it is not clear if this change was intentional. The court stated: The court evaluated the evidence, including the photographs of the residence and found Mr. Sparks's evidence that repairs totaling $30,027.63 were necessary to make the appraisal value accurate were credible by a preponderance of the evidence. While a reevaluation of the value of the repairs and the use of an adjusted amount would not necessarily have been an abuse of discretion, we are unable to determine if the new figure was based on a reevaluation or a transcription error based on the language of the order. [40] We remand this issue for clarification.