PRINT, PDF, EMAIL

The trial court was concerned that the husband may not have timely disclosed debts other than a mortgage. The trial court may have ultimately decided against including evidence of other debts in calculating the value of the real estate investment company on the basis that they were not timely disclosed in discovery. The trial court’s determination of the value of the parties’ interest in the company was supported by the evidence, and it did not abuse its discretion determining the value of the parties’ interest in the company to be $105,545. Given the conflicting evidence of values of the commercial property, it was within the trial court’s discretion to conclude that it was worth $325,200 pre-debt. The record did not show that the trial court’s division of the community estate was so disproportionate as to constitute an abuse of discretion. The lower court’s judgment was affirmed.