Opinion
Dec. 1, 1970.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Phelps, Fonda, Hays & Abram, Pueblo, for plaintiff in error.
Alperstein & Plaut, Lakewood, for defendant in error.
DUFFORD, Judge.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado and was subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under the authority vested in the Supreme Court.
The plaintiff wife brings this appeal from a permanent order of the lower court concerning division of property, alimony, support of minor children, attorney's fees, and visitation rights.
The sole question raised here is whether the trial court, in ordering a division of property, overlooked certain assets of the defendant husband. The plaintiff contends that $28,828 worth of inventory in the defendant's business was not considered in the division of property award, although listed as an asset on several of the defendant's income tax returns. We do not feel that the record supports plaintiff's contention. The trial judge specifically stated that the inventory was included within the appraisal of machinery filed with the court.
The trial court did accept as a value for the inventory the value determination made by the qualified court appraiser as opposed to the value figure attributed to it by the defendant in his income tax returns. Such action constituted a weighing of conflicting evidence on the part of the trial court, and does not represent a situation in which it ignored or disregarded uncontradicted evidence concerning the existence of an asset. The evidence upon which the trial court made its conclusion as to the value of the inventory was no less competent than that which was represented by the income tax return figures, and we see no basis upon which we should disturb the trial court's conclusion upon review, Reilly v. Korholz, 137 Colo. 20, 320 P.2d 756.
Judgment is affirmed.
DWYER and PIERCE, JJ., concur.