Opinion ID: 1186299
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Carpet for the Valdez house

Text: Larry argues that the superior court erred in finding that Angela had paid for carpeting for the Valdez house. He asserts that Angela did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she gave $6,000 to Larry to pay for carpeting for the Valdez house. The trial court's factual findings on this issue shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Horton v. Hansen, 722 P.2d 211, 215 n. 7 (Alaska 1986). Larry argues that Angela's evidence is particularly weak because she introduced no bank statements. He also claims that because Angela was never involved in building the house, it would have been inconsistent for her to give him money for the house. The evidence on this dispute is not crystal clear. The superior court based its finding on the parties' testimony and on a bank statement from their joint checking account showing a deposit of $6,000 in May 1993. It is irrelevant to speculate about what might have been proven had excluded exhibits, such as other bank statements, been admitted into evidence. The record is also unclear about whether Angela would have contributed her own money to purchase materials for the Valdez house. Angela testified that she remembered giving Larry $6,000 out of her separate account to pay for carpeting for the Valdez house. On cross-examination, Angela was unsure about the form of her payment to Larry or whether Larry had deposited the amount. Larry also testified about the alleged gift from Angela, and testified that she had not put any money into the Valdez house. He admitted, however, that he did not know where the $6,000 deposit had come from, and he conceded that the money could have come from Angela's account. Because Larry did not directly contradict Angela's testimony that she gave the money to Larry, the trial court's finding that Angela gave Larry $6,000 for carpeting is not clearly erroneous, even though the other evidence was equivocal.