Court Opinion

ID: 9701364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:17:04.667986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:22.952611
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from the disposition of this case as set forth in the majority opinion. I can accept the conclusion that the distribution of the property by the district court was inequitable because Reed received the assets possessing a high income-producing capacity and consequent tax advantages, whereas Glenda received predominantly cash awards. I cannot, however, agree that Glenda “must” receive all the marketable securities owned by the parties instead of the $200,000 property-settlement award made by the district court. This is a large estate. Perhaps Glenda should receive the marketable securities but, on the other hand, perhaps Glenda should receive a larger cash award or some other income-producing property in lieu thereof. If this court determines the division of property to be inequitable there may be — in some instances, where there is little property to distribute — only one equitable method of distribution. Where, as here, there is considerable property involved, I cannot conclude this court should redistribute the property. Rather, I believe the case should be remanded with proper directions.