 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stageberg v. Stageberg5/3/2005
rtion acquired prior to the marriage, as marital property, and husband does not challenge this characterization. Thus, the only issue before the district court was the equitable distribution of the marital asset, the homestead. Because wife successfully traced a non-marital contribution to the purchase of the homestead, the district court did not err in finding that she had a non-marital interest.
VI.
The district court awarded wife the parties' golf -club membership at a value of $35,000. Husband challenges this valuation, alleging that it should be $500, because that is the amount for which the parties could sell the membership back to the golf club. But because the membership was awarded to wife, husband is not aggrieved by its alleged overvaluation, and he cannot appeal the point. See Twin Cities Metro. Pub. Transit Area v. Holter, 311 Minn. 423, 425, 249 N.W.2d 458, 460 (1977). Moreover, the record shows that obtaining a new membership would cost $35,000. Therefore, we affirm the district court's treatment of the golf-club membership. See Bateman v. Bateman, 382 N.W.2d 240, 246 (Minn. App. 1986) (stating that in valuing assets for dissolution purposes, " market value of the asset is controlling"), review denied (Minn. Apr. 24, 1986).
DECISION
Because wife has a marital interest in husband's unrecovered contingency fees, the portion of a contingent fee for work in progress on the valuation date that is attributable to work done before the valuation date shall be treated as marital property for dissolution purposes.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded; motion granted.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|