Opinion
Oct. 25, 1972.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Richard N. Graham, Englewood, for defendant-appellant.
Page 956
ENOCH, Judge.
Joy Robb, plaintiff-appellee, was granted a decree of divorce from Donald Robb, defendant-appellant, in December 1970. Mr. Robb appeals from portions of the judgment relative to the division of certain assets. Mrs. Robb has entered no appearance in this appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
During the marriage, the parties accumulated considerable assets which included an interest in certain laundromats and a $25,000 savings account. These are the only assets involved in this appeal.
I
Mr. Robb alleges that his $5,000 estimate of the value of the laundromats was correct and that the court erred in adopting the value of $14,500 set by an appraiser. We do not agree. Two appraisals and Mr. Robb's estimate were before the court. The value adopted by the court is the amount set by one of the appraisers, and the record indicates that the court gave consideration to Mr. robb's testimony and his objections to the appraisal adopted. The findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on review where there is conflicting evidence and there is adequate evidence to support the findings. Davis v. Roberson, 160 Colo. 343, 417 P.2d 507.
Mr. Robb further contends that in the division of assets, the trial court should have charged Mrs. Robb for $1,000 which she withdrew from the joint savings account after the decree of divorce was entered. The record shows that after Mrs. Robb withdraw the $1,000 the parties entered into a written stipulation and agreement which was approved by the court June 25, 1971. This agreement provided that $15,000 from the savings account would go to Mr. Robb and $10,000 to his wife. Any balance over $25,000 was to be divided equally. Nothing was said about any adjustment due to the $1,000 withdrawal which had already occurred. The judgment here on review resulted from a hearing January 21, 1972, concerning the division of assets which were not previously divided in the stipulation of June 25, 1971.
The court was correct in not going behind the stipulation of the parties to make an adjustment for the $1,000 withdrawn. There is no evidence that this withdrawal was not considered by the parties at the time of their stipulation. In any event, the trial court under the circumstances of this case could not, after its approval, change the terms of the stipulation and agreement of the parties concerning the division of property. See Eisenson v. Eisenson, 158 Colo. 394, 407 P.2d 20; Margarrell v. Margarrell, 144 Colo. 228, 355 P.2d 946; Watson v. Watson, 29 Colo.App. 449, 485 P.2d 919.
II
The trial court ordered Mrs. Robb to pay the cost of the second appraisal made on the business property and ordered Mr. Robb to pay the cost of the first appraisal. Mr. Robb claims that Mrs. Robb also should have been required to pay one-half of the first appraisal. He alleges that the parties jointly agreed to obtain the first appraisal and that they were to share the cost. The evidence is not consistent with Mr. Robb's contention concerning the sharing of the cost. There is nothing in the record, other than Mr. Robb's assertion, to indicate that Mrs. Robb had agreed to pay one-half the cost of the first appraisal and the issue does not appear to have been raised by appellant until the January 1972 hearing. In a May 1971 hearing, Mrs. Robb was granted permission to have a second appraisal made on condition that she pay for it. No issue appears to have been raised at that time about any agreement concerning the payment of the first appraisal and the matter was not made a part of the June 1971 written agreement which was related, in part, to the appraisals. Where there is no binding agreement to the contrary, the trial court has broad discretion in the assessment of costs and in the absence of any abuse of that discretion its decision will not be disturbed on review. See Stovall v. Crosby, 171 Colo. 70, 464 P.2d 868; Superior Distributing Corp. v. White, 146 Colo. 595, 362 P.2d 196. We find no abuse of discretion in this case.
Judgment affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and DWYER, J., concur.