Opinion ID: 882378
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The property valuations.

Text: Charlene contends that the District Court erred in adopting Roger's valuations as set forth in his proposed findings of fact. We have reviewed the record with regard to the valuations placed upon the farm and ranch equipment, real property and the home and have concluded that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the District Court's valuation of those items. In a similar manner, while there is conflicting evidence, we conclude there is substantial evidence to support the District Court's evaluation of the cattle. A significant portion of the personal property owned by the parties was not valued by the District Court. The findings only referred to these assets as miscellaneous items of personal property with no established value, being household goods, etc. Both parties introduced evidence relating to this personal property and its values. There is a substantial list of property including such things as a Conklin dealership, Cenex and Nemont stock, capital credits or patronage dividends in GTA, Sheridan Electric Coop and Nemont, a satellite dish, and a water treatment system. Because of the necessity for a remand because of our previously stated conclusions on changes in marital debt owed, we conclude that it will be appropriate on remand for the District Court to more specifically review the items of personal property and value the same. Because of the apparent inability of the parties to divide these assets, we therefore remand so that the District Court may determine the distribution to be made of such personal property.