Opinion ID: 1143506
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disparate Disposition of Marital Assets.

Text: The principal factors to be weighed by the trial court in making a property division are: (1) the ages of the parties; (2) their earning capacity; (3) the duration of the marriage; (4) the conduct of the parties during marriage; (5) the parties' station in life; (6) the circumstances and necessities of each; (7) their health; (8) their financial condition; (9) the time and manner of acquisition of the property in question; (10) the value of the property at the time of division; and (11) the income-producing capacity of the property. Merrill, 368 P.2d at 547 n. 4; Brooks, 677 P.2d at 1233. This list is not exhaustive and the trial court may consider other factors it deems relevant. Brooks, 677 P.2d at 1233. Nor must the court make findings on all of the Merrill factors. Burcell, 713 P.2d at 805. The findings must, however, provide a sufficient basis for the conclusion reached. Brooks, 677 P.2d at 1233. The trial court awarded Marla approximately 58.25% of the equity in the marital assets. It found this division to be equitable based on Marla's medical problems, the fact [that] the marriage lasted over 20 years, the comfortable standard of living achieved by the parties, the fact that the wife is now 49 years old and the fact that the husband's earning capabilities are substantially greater than the wife's. The court thus made express findings on factors 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 listed above. Kenneth challenges the court's conclusion on the ground that it did not consider the income producing capacity of certain real property and that its findings with regard to Marla's health were not supported by the evidence.
Kenneth asserts for the first time on appeal that the three lots in the Soldotna subdivision that were awarded to Marla contain gravel and would likely be developed into a gravel pit if sold. Kenneth argues that this would have a devastating effect on the value of the adjacent property where the house awarded to Kenneth is located. This point was not raised at trial and therefore cannot, as a general rule, be raised here to obtain a reversal. Zeman v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 699 P.2d 1274, 1280 (Alaska 1985). Kenneth does not present any reason for departure from this general rule, nor is any such reason apparent from the record. Moreover, the parties stipulated to the value of the lots and the house. Whether the stipulated value of the house was reached after consideration of the potential impact of the surrounding lots being developed as a gravel pit cannot be determined from the record. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the parties' stipulation to the value of the respective properties involved. In any event, it seems clear that Kenneth has waived the point. [4]
Kenneth asserts that Marla did not produce sufficient, admissible evidence of her health problems to warrant the trial court's findings. We can overturn a trial court's finding of fact only when it is clearly erroneous. Alaska R.Civ.P. 52(a). Findings are clearly erroneous if, based on the record as a whole, this court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Burcell, 713 P.2d at 804. Marla presented documentary evidence including letters and notations by various doctors regarding her possible multiple sclerosis. [5] While not conclusive, the exhibits corroborate Marla's testimony that she suffered certain symptoms and refer to test results supporting a diagnosis of MS. Marla also presented testimony of a medical doctor about symptoms common to and the prognosis of MS patients. This doctor also testified that MS is very difficult to diagnose and that a patient must be repeatedly tested over time to enable a conclusive diagnosis. Although he had not examined Marla, the symptoms he discussed as supporting a diagnosis of MS corresponded with Marla's description of her symptoms. Marla also testified that she has arthritis in both hands and that this made her work very difficult and that it made it impossible to work as a dental assistant any longer. She also stated that her hands were gnarled by the disease  a claim the trial court could presumably verify by its own observation. She produced an x-ray report stating that an examination revealed osteoarthritic changes in the joints of her fingers. Finally, Kenneth himself testified that she complained of pain in her hands throughout the time of their marriage. Kenneth produced no contrary evidence regarding either the MS or the arthritis. The trial court found that Marla had shown, by at least a preponderance of the evidence, a strong likelihood that she suffers from multiple sclerosis and arthritis, and that these problems placed the prospect of her continued employment in doubt. Based on a review of the record as a whole, we cannot say that this finding was clearly erroneous. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Marla a greater share of the marital property based on its consideration of the Merrill factors, given her health problems and their probable effect on her earning capacity.