Opinion ID: 1937915
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court abused its discretion in making the property division.

Text: The trial court is required to make an equitable division of property when a decree of divorce is granted. SDCL 25-4-44. It has broad powers of discretion in this area and the same will not be set aside or modified by this court unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused such discretion. Jeffries v. Jeffries, 434 N.W.2d 585 (S.D.1989); Cole v. Cole, 384 N.W.2d 312 (S.D.1986); Garnos v. Garnos, 376 N.W.2d 571 (S.D.1985). In making an equitable division of property, the trial court must take into consideration the duration of the marriage, the value of the property of each of the parties, the ages of the parties, their health and competency to earn a living, and the contribution each has made to the accumulation of the marital property. Cole, supra ; Garnos, supra . In the present case, husband's argument is simply unpersuasive and fails to convince this court that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the property. The trial court made specific findings on each factor which this court has indicated on numerous occasions must be taken into consideration. See Cole, supra ; Garnos, supra . The trial court also made specific findings on the value of each individual piece of personal property and also on the livestock, grain and farm equipment. It also made a finding on the total liabilities. With respect to the property valuations both parties were satisfied with the appraisals which had been made prior to the trial. The trial court found that although husband brought more assets into the marriage, each party made an equal contribution to the accumulation of property during the marriage. [3] The trial court awarded the farm assets, the farm-related debts and some household goods and miscellaneous items to husband. [4] Although the sum of the debts allocated to each is greatly disproportionate, husband's income-producing ability on the farm ($27,526 in 1987) compared to wife's employment at the Lake Norden Creamery, (annual salary of $7,350) justifies the division of farm assets and liabilities related thereto. Husband is in a more desirable position, financially, to satisfy these debts. Had the trial court separated the farm assets from its debts, it would be virtually impossible for the receiver of the farming debts to satisfy the same without the means to produce sufficient income to meet the farming indebtedness. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the division of property and allocation of debts.