Court Opinion

ID: 9786984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:07:47.541899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:50.866545
License: Public Domain

GOLDEN, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[114] While I agree that the divorce decree should be reversed and remanded for reconsideration of child support, I do not agree with the majority opinion concerning the property distribution. The majority *320opinion finds that the district court made a mistake of fact in calculating the value of the marital property. The record does not support a finding that the district court made a "mistake." The divorce decree indicates the district court understood that there were not two distinct debts, but rather one business debt of $470,000.00 secured by a second mortgage on the Jackson residence.
[115] I believe the pertinent issue to be whether the district court abused its discretion in subtracting the $470,000.00 business debt from the value of both the business and the Jackson residence. In a perfect world, the majority opinion would be correct. If Husband's business paid off the business debt, then the second mortgage would be removed from the Jackson residence without ever having lowered the equity in the residence. In this situation, deducting the business loan from the equity of the Jackson residence does result in a double credit to Husband. However, the opposite could occur. If Husband's business fails, and thereby cannot pay off the debt, then not only will the business be valueless because of its failure, but the full amount of the business debt will have to be paid off from the equity in the Jackson residence per the terms of the see-ond mortgage. In this situation, Husband financially comes out even worse than the marital distribution suggests since he will lose the $470,000 from the equity on the Jackson residence and he will lose whatever value was assigned to the business by the district court.
[T16] It seems to me that any finding reflecting either one of these two extremes, or anything in the middle, would be within the district court's discretion if supported by pertinent facts and cireumstances. In this case, the district court was presented with evidence that Husband's business was facing extreme difficulties in the near future, making failure a possibility. Under the cireum-stances, I do not believe that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously, nor is its decision "so unfair and inequitable that reasonable people could not abide it."