Opinion ID: 883148
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: AIC Properties

Text: Bob asserts that the District Court incorrectly valued AIC Properties at $81,000. He argues on appeal that, in arbitration proceedings between the McNellises and the Dagels, an arms length value of $55,000.00 was arrived at as the value of the Dagel one-half interest ... and based on that arms length settlement, the McNellises' one-half interest for the purposes of marital property distribution is also $55,000. At trial, Bob also testified, after extensive calculations, that the McNellises' share was worth between 38,500 and 54,000, 54,190, to be exact. The District Court succinctly summarized the positions of the parties and made the following finding of fact: This partnership owns the building in which AIC, Inc., operates... . The building has been appraised at $334,300 ... Parts of the building are used by AIC in its industrial coating business, and other parts are leased out to other tenants. The rent paid by the tenants makes the mortgage payment due on the property. .... The parties owe $185,000 to the Small Business Administration on the building. Further ... AIC Properties owes about $13,000 to Bob. Catherine feels that the AIC Properties Partnership should be valued at $81,000. This takes the appraised value of the building ($334,300) and subtracts from it the SBA loan of $185,000, the $13,000 owed to Bob, and the $55,000 owed to the Dagels. Bob, on the other hand, contends that AIC is worth on $55,000. He makes his calculations by taking the increase in value of the building over its book value, which totals $81,000. He then adds in the parties['] investment of $29,000 to come up with $110,000. Bob would then subtract the debt owed to the Dagels ($55,000), to come up with the $55,000 figure. The Court, however, finds that this approach ignores the market value of the building. Therefore, the Court values AIC Properties at $81,000. We conclude that the District Court set forth sufficient reasons for adopting Cathy's valuation of AIC Properties, and therefore, the value of $81,000 is not clearly erroneous.