Opinion ID: 2103319
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: marital assets were properly valued.

Text: Donald argues that the trial judge was clearly erroneous in valuing the Baltzers' property, particularly the marital home. We disagree. Exactitude is not required of the trial court in the valuation of assets in a dissolution proceeding; it is only necessary that the value arrived at lies within a reasonable range of figures. Goehry v. Goehry, 354 N.W.2d 192, 196 (S.D.1984); Krage v. Krage, 329 N.W.2d 878 (S.D.1983); Hanks v. Hanks, 296 N.W. 2d 523, 526 (S.D.1980). In valuing the assets for purposes of making a property division, the trial court is not required to accept either party's proposed valuation. Hanks, supra . The only time this court will interfere with the valuations as determined by the trial court is when the trial court has made a clearly erroneous valuation finding. Herrboldt v. Herrboldt, 303 N.W.2d 571 (S.D.1981). Absent a stipulation as to the values of assets, the parties had better be prepared to produce hard evidence as to those values other than their own personal opinions. Hanks, supra at 526. There was no appraisal of the condominium submitted, thus the trial court was not clearly erroneous in using the purchase price of the property two years ago. Although Donald testified that the condominium had decreased in value, his personal opinion must be weighed with circumspection. The court did not err in rejecting Donald's value absent any appraisal by a disinterested party. Donald does not point out errors as to any of the other marital property. We hold that the values assigned to the property by the trial court are within a plausible range and should not be modified or set aside by this court on review.