Opinion ID: 2625585
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Transferred Money

Text: [¶ 8] Wife challenges the district court's finding regarding the $61,000 that Husband transferred out of the parties' joint accounts in the months prior to Husband filing for divorce. In reference to this money, the district court stated in its amended decision letter that [t]he Court reviewed the incomplete, Wyoming bank records and the testimony regarding Arkansas accounts  but could not make significant findings concerning the propriety of the transactions (that could be supported by a preponderance of the evidence). Based on this finding, Wife was not awarded any of this money in the final property distribution. Wife claims that this is marital property that was misappropriated prior to the divorce and should have been equitably divided by the district court. Husband argues that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to include this money in the marital estate because the district court reasonably found that this money was spent prior to the divorce to protect marital assets, to pay taxes, and to support Husband and the children during the pendency of the divorce. [¶ 9] Under the deferential standard of review set forth above, we will affirm the district court's decision. The statement of evidence prepared by the parties and approved by the district court indicates that Husband explained these transactions at trial. He testified that he used this money to pay credit card debt, buy furniture for himself, pay taxes, buy Christmas presents for the children, pay for part of [their daughter's] dental work, pay for a vacation to Florida [1] and pay his attorney's fees. Wife's complaint is not with how the money was spent, but rather with whether it was spent at all or whether it was transferred out of Husband's separate accounts to parts unknown. Wife maintains that, because Husband failed to present documentary evidence concerning the propriety of his transactions, we must find error. This argument ignores the fact that Husband testified at trial about these transactions, which testimony (when viewed in light of the district court's decree) the district court found credible. The district court found that this money was no longer available for it to divide and that there was insufficient evidence of impropriety in Husband's transactions regarding this money. Moreover, Wife does not direct us to any rule of law that was clearly violated by the district court's decision. Because we are required to accept as true all of Husband's evidence, we find that the district court could reasonably conclude as it did, and affirm its decision.