Opinion ID: 1309775
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Aniak Property

Text: Doug argues that the values given to the Aniak property (which was awarded to him) were inflated by both judges because they used the appraised completed value of $193,000 plus the value of a shed on the lot. Doug believed they should have used the as is value of $163,000 without adding the shed value because he claimed the shed was included in the basic appraisal. He also claims error in Judge Carlson's finding that valued the lot without subtracting a $10,000 debt allegedly owed on it. We must affirm the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous; that is, unless upon our reading of the whole record, we are definitely and firmly convinced that the court made a mistake. Alaska R.Civ.P. 52(a); Sumner v. Fel-Air, Inc., 680 P.2d 1109 (Alaska 1984). Doug did not provide documentary evidence of the $10,000 debt. The only evidence provided consisted of his oral testimony. Marsha testified that, though Doug claimed a $10,000 debt existed on the property, the creditor told her that the creditor's unrelated use of Moffitt Contracting equipment would have reduced that, perhaps to zero. To the extent that this issue depends on the credibility of the parties, Judge Carlson had ample opportunity to evaluate the parties' demeanor on this particular question. Accordingly, we affirm Judge Carlson's recommendation. The appraisal does not include any value for the large shed it lists. However, Marsha apparently provided an appraisal for a shed or building on the lot valued at $22,296. The transcript discloses that Doug and Marsha disagreed over whether the $22,296 shed was included in the appraisal of the lot and house. It seems unlikely that a house appraiser would not separately note the value of an outbuilding worth over $20,000. We see no clear error in the addition of this shed to the appraisal value of the property. Neither judge explained why he used the completed appraised value of $193,000 rather than the as is value of $166,000 in valuing the Aniak property. Apparently, the reason was that Doug's attorney adopted the higher value in his trial summation. He stated: At that time [a year before trial] the Aniak property, the land and the improvements was valued at $197,720 ... I would refer Your Honor to the appraisal done by  well, the only Aniak appraisal in evidence, and I'm sure that the court will find that that value was  that the land and improvements were appraised at $197[000]. [5] Moreover, the property was improved after the appraisal in several ways. First, Doug built a shop on it valued at $44,000. He conceded at trial that, if the court rejected his theory that he and Marsha were equitably divorced as of April 1984, [6] then the value of the Aniak property should be increased by the value of this shop. Second, the house in Aniak was converted into a triplex, a change which would probably increase the value of the property. At the very least, it suggests that the house was finished between the time of the appraisal in 1984 and the final divorce decree in 1986. Also, it turns a disadvantage noted on the appraisal concerning the layout of the house (no interior stairwells connecting the 3 levels and being overbuilt for the Aniak area) into an advantage. Accordingly, we find no error in the determination that the Aniak property should be valued at its completed appraisal value.