Opinion
Jan. 8, 1974
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Kokish, Garner & Rubner, John Kokish, Denver, for petitioner-appellant.
Roger Cisneros, Denver, for respondent-appellee.
PIERCE, Judge.
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in its entry of a property settlement in this divorce action. The record indicates that the appellant-husband was awarded property valued by the court at $52,342 and the wife was awarded property valued at $33,800. The principal dispute is over some of the valuations placed on some of the items of property by the court.
The testimony regarding values is very contradictory and confusing, but there was evidence, either testimony or affidavits, presented which provided the basis for each valuation arrived at by the trial court. The record is clear that, over the twenty-eight years of their marriage, both parties contributed from their employment to the acquisition of the property, and that the wife will have the custody and responsibility for part of the expenses of two minor children who will remain with her in the family home.
Viewing the evidence in its totality, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the trial court abused its discretion in determining the values of the property or in dividing the property, once the values were determined; and accordingly, we will not disturb the judgment on appeal. Kraus v. Kraus, 159 Colo. 331, 411 P.2d 240; Liggett v. Liggett, 152 Colo. 110, 380 P.2d 673.
Judgment affirmed.
COYTE and ENOCH, JJ., concur.