Court Opinion

ID: 9885021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:27:57.216102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:43.290642
License: Public Domain

NIERENGARTEN, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The trial court arrived at a figure that, while not reflecting the figure which would have been reached had it strictly followed the Schmitz formula, was within a justifiable range given the wide discretion enjoyed by the trial court in matters of this kind. See Schmitz, 309 N.W.2d at 750. See also In re the Marriage of Rohling v. Rohling, 379 N.W.2d 519, 522 (Minn.1986) (a trial court’s property distribution is to be given *409great deference and must be affirmed if it has an acceptable basis in fact and principle, even if the reviewing court might have reached a different result). Moreover, the burden was on Donald to prove the non-marital character of the funds he invested in the condominium. See VandeLoo v. VandeLoo, 346 N.W.2d 173, 177 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). His failure to provide the court with the condominium’s fair market value at marriage required the court to utilize other figures. Thus, I cannot say the trial court erred in awarding Donald $38,794 as non-marital property.
Finally, I believe there is a real danger in an appellate tribunal making its own calculations to determine the mathematical errors of a trial court committed in misapplication of a murky formula where the overall end results appear to be equitable. Appellate courts have enough to do with reading briefs and writing opinions without becoming mathematicians.