Opinion ID: 1879553
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Real and Personal Property

Text: Marvella claims the property division is inequitable because Jerry received the marital home (valued at $27,500) and business property which included a building capable of generating $350 per month rental income while she received the cafe (which has less value than debt) and a one-half interest in the present value of Jerry's profit-sharing trust [3] which is not currently available to her. Jerry argues that Marvella cannot complain about the award of the marital home because she told the trial court she wanted either the house and the horse area or neither. The horses were Jerry's hobby and the area behind the house, used for pasturing and exercising the horses, was of no interest or use to her. She now argues that Jerry could have found another place for the horses if the trial court had awarded both properties to her. Jerry also asserts that she asked the trial court to award her the Cadillac which she now complains is merely a depreciable asset. The trial court must consider equity and the circumstances of the parties when it divides marital property. SDCL 25-4-44; Cole v. Cole, 384 N.W.2d 312 (S.D.1986); Garnos v. Garnos, 376 N.W.2d 571 (S.D.1985). The principal factors to be considered in determining an equitable property division are: the length of the marriage; the value of the property; the age and health of the parties; their respective competency to earn a living; the contributions of each party to the accumulation of the property; and the income producing capacity of the parties' assets. Cole, supra at 314 ( citing Clement v. Clement, 292 N.W.2d 799 (S.D.1980)). In this case: 1) The parties were married for thirty-two years. 2) The trial court valued the property awarded to Jerry at $81,731.83 (net value  $44,387.83) and the property awarded to Marvella at $74,916.27 (net value  $45,916.27). 3) At the time of the divorce, Jerry was fifty-one years old and Marvella was forty-nine years old. The trial court found both parties were able bodied, in good health. It appears from the testimony that the 1981 surgery removed the substantial disability which Marvella incurred as a result of the 1979 accident. 4) The trial court found both parties were capable of earning a living wage. 5) The trial court did not make a specific finding as to the contributions of each party to the accumulation of property, however, the award of approximately equal net amounts may indicate that the trial court found an equal contribution. 6) In essence, Jerry was awarded his business and the home and Marvella was awarded her business. His profit sharing plan was divided equally. The trial court commented that Jerry's business income had been adversely affected by the poor farm economy and that Marvella could use food purchased for the cafe at home. The trial court has broad discretion in making a division of the marital property and its judgment will not be set aside absent a clear abuse of discretion. Goehry v. Goehry, 354 N.W.2d 192 (S.D.1984). Upon reviewing Marvella's objections, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The trial court should have been less concerned with Marvella's ultimatum and might have granted the home to the wife and the horse area and entire retirement trust to the husband, but we are not prepared to say its failure to do so was an abuse of discretion.