Opinion
John T. Dugan, F. E. Dickerson, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Benjamin R. Loye, P. C., Wheat Ridge, for defendant-appellee.
SMITH, Judge.
Plaintiff was awarded a divorce from defendant on November 2, 1971. The matter of property settlement came on for hearing April 12, 1972. Plaintiff appeals asserting that the court abused its discretion in ordering that the defendant be awarded a note with a balance due of $8,050.
The record indicates that plaintiff's mother left certain real property to plaintiff, who subsequently sold the property taking back a note and deed of trust. It is this note that is the subject of this appeal. Both parties agree that the evidence supports the trial court's finding that plaintiff used a portion of her inheritance for family expenses. Plaintiff argues that it was error for the court to have awarded defendant a note which derived from the sale of property acquired through inheritance. Defendant argues that inasmuch as the parties had jointly contributed to the financial achievements of the marriage, funds derived from a portion of plaintiff's inheritance became a part of the joint assets of the marriage, and the court was acting within its discretionary power in awarding the same in the form of the subject note to defendant.
Inherited property 'is not Per se excluded from consideration by the court in making a determination of the property rights of the parties.' Santilli v. Santilli, 169 Colo. 49, 453 P.2d 606. Here the court found that both parties contributed financially to the marriage and to the maintenance of the family unit and that defendant contributed the entire remuneration he received from his employment which was more than plaintiff's contribution from her inheritance and earnings. This finding is supported by the evidence. The court, in making an equitable property determination, could properly award defendant the note in question in order to balance the awards given the parties according to their contributions to the joint assets of the marriage. Thompson v. Thompson, 30 Colo.App. 57, 489 P.2d 1062. In the present case, the joint assets of the parties were divided equally, and, as the record supports a finding that defendant did make a greater contribution to the accumulation of these assets, it was within the board discretion granted to the trial court in these matters to award the note in question to defendant and the balance of the inheritance to the plaintiff. Nunemacher v. Nunemacher, 132 Colo. 300, 287 P.2d 662. Hyde v. Hyde, 169 Colo. 403, 457 P.2d 393.
Judgment affirmed.
COYTE and ENOCH, JJ., concur.