Opinion ID: 2106807
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Co-tenant's Contributions Towards the Properties.

Text: Defendant next argues that the court erred in finding that, after purchase, both parties had contributed equally to the properties. Specifically, defendant argues that plaintiffs performance of housekeeping and maintenance duties should not be considered as a contribution. Defendant also argues that the court erred in finding that plaintiff was undercompensated for the services she provided at the steel yard. The court's findings as to the value of each parties' contributions are findings of fact. Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. M.R.Civ.P. 52(a) (1995). We will not disturb the court's determination of the monetary value of plaintiff's services, as it is supported by competent evidence in the record. The record also supports the finding that plaintiff's maintenance of the properties was in furtherance of the parties' agreement concerning both properties.