Divorce; Property division; Sparks v Sparks

Holding “that the trial court’s departure from a roughly congruent division of the assets was not inequitable” given the record, the court affirmed the parties’ divorce judgment. Defendant-ex-husband (David) asserted “the trial court’s property award resulted in him receiving only 36.89 % of the marital estate while” plaintiff-ex-wife (Rhonda) received 63.11 %. The court noted that he “was awarded the marital home and its associated debt, the solar panels and their associated debt, the off-road vehicle and its associated debt, his vehicle and its associated debt. Although the total debt on those assets was not insignificant, the trial court found that David would be free to liquidate the assets that he was awarded in order to pay off the associated debts and receive a ‘fresh start’ free of those debts.” The court found that it “is not inequitable to award the party receiving substantial and valuable marital assets the debts associated therewith.” In addition, the record reflected “that much of the remaining marital debt that was awarded to David was accumulated as a result of David’s lengthy history of imprudent spending.” Pursuant to Sparks, one of the factors “a court may consider when determining how to equitably divide marital property, including debts, is the ‘contributions of the parties to the marital estate.’” As a result, the trial court “properly considered David’s substantial contributions to the accumulation of the marital debt.” He did not challenge this finding on appeal. It appeared “that at least some of the debts that he now complains were inequitably assigned to him were for improvements to the marital home, which he was awarded during the divorce. The [trial] court’s decision to hold the parties responsible for their own respective debts left David responsible for $37,249 in debt, consisting of a credit card with a balance of $13,369, his PayPal account with a balance of $6,603, his home improvement loan with a balance of $17,159 of debt, and a second credit card with a balance of $118. In turn, Rhonda was left with credit card debt of $16,523. To equalize the division of the debts, [she] was ordered to transfer $50,000 from her retirement account to David’s retirement account.” The court was “not left with a firm conviction that the” trial court’s property division was inequitable.