Opinion ID: 900641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Farm Assets

Text: [¶ 19.] The trial court awarded all the farm assets and the road maintenance assets to Todd. Jill argues that the trial court erred in awarding Todd all of the farm and road maintenance assets because [a]t the time of trial, ... [Jill] did have a farm/ranch operation in existence at the marital residence wherein [Jill] maintained [ten] cow/calf pairs and horses. Jill contends that to continue her operation, she requested the trial court to award her specific farm assets to allow her to continue her operation. Further, Jill claims that Todd had scaled back his own farming operation to concentrate on his road maintenance business, had access to other farm equipment, and did not have livestock. [¶ 20.] As we previously noted, the trial court shall have regard for equity and the circumstances of the parties. Endres, 532 N.W.2d at 71. In weighing the circumstances of the parties, the court found that Jill intended to remain in her present position with the First National Bank of Brookings at least for the time being and will not have her earning capacity impaired as a result of the Court's award of property. The court ultimately found that Todd's ability to operate a farming business and road maintenance business requires allocation of those assets to [Todd]. In light of our determination that the Kenny Albrecht property is to be valued at $89,000, the award of the Marital Residence and the farm assets to Todd and the cash award to Jill does not constitute an inequitable property division.