 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Serino v. Serino6/27/2000
.2d 633, 636 (Minn. App. 1984) (requiring party to show by preponderance of evidence that assets were "acquired in exchange for" non-marital property); Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 5 (defining non-marital property).
Respondent testified that her settlement proceeds were deposited in a joint account for the purpose of making a down payment on the Afton property and that $11,500 of that money was used as part of that down payment. See id. (non-marital inheritance readily traceable, even though deposited in joint checking account and used to pay marital debts and purchase items for homestead); see also Nash v. Nash, 388 N.W.2d 777, 781 (Minn. App. 1986) ("Tracing does not require a party to produce the serial numbers of the dollar bills used."), review denied (Minn. Aug. 20, 1986). The evidence further shows that this $11,500 represented a large portion of the settlement proceeds and that only a short period of time transpired between deposit of the proceeds and withdrawal of the funds for the down payment. This evidence, taken with respondent's testimony, was sufficient to trace respondent's non-marital interest in the Afton property. The trial court therefore properly determined that a portion of the property was non-marital.
Further, appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his request that respondent reimburse him for the mortgage payments he has made on the Afton property since October 1997, when respondent moved out. The record shows that both parties made financial contributions towards the property and that respondent had been solely responsible for the mortgage payment for several years prior to the parties' separation. The trial court therefore properly characterized the remaining portions of the property as marital. See Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 5 (defining marital property as property acquired by parties at any time during marriage).
6. Appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that respondent did not dissipate marital assets by retaining the balance of the funds provided for her house down payment and by cashing a $4,500 certificate of deposit. Respondent testified that she used the money to furnish her home and to pay joint expenses. It is clear from the trial court's amended findings that it found respondent's explanation credible. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 (trial court entitled to weigh credibility of witnesses). Because there is evidence in the record that respondent used the money for marital expenses, the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in finding respondent did not dissipate the marital estate. See Volesky v. Volesky, 412 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn. App. 1987).
7. Appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial or allow him to engage in post-trial discovery. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in either decision. See Sucher v. Sucher, 416 N.W.2d 182, 186 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Mar. 18, 1988); Haaland v. Haaland, 392 N.W.2d 268, 273 (Minn. App. 1986); Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.01 (setting forth grounds on which court "may" grant new trial).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|