Divorce; Fault; Value of the parties’ marital home & cattle; Distribution of the parties’ marital property

The court held that because “the parties did not dispute the respective values of their marital home or cattle, the trial court did not clearly err by distributing the parties’ marital assets without specifically assessing their value.” And because the record supported “the trial court’s findings underlying its distribution of the parties’ marital assets, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the parties’ marital home to” plaintiff-ex-wife. Defendant-ex-husband argued “that the trial court clearly erred by failing to assess the value of the parties’ marital home and cattle before distributing their marital assets.” He also argued “that the trial court abused its discretion by inequitably distributing the parties’ marital property in” plaintiff’s favor. The court found that because “the value of such marital property was not in dispute, the trial court did not clearly err by failing to specifically assess the value of the parties’ marital home and cattle before distributing their marital assets.” The record reflected “that the trial court did not focus solely on [defendant’s] fault and otherwise supports the trial court’s departure from an equal property distribution in” plaintiff’s favor. The trial court considered other factors, including the “duration of the parties’ marriage, [her] disproportionate contribution to the marital estate, the parties’ ability to work, the parties’ good health, and [defendant’s] failure to comply with orders throughout the proceedings. In doing so, the trial court validly exercised its broad discretion by placing greater weight on [his] acts and omissions in fashioning its ruling.” The court held that because the record reflected “that the trial court did not focus solely on [his] fault and otherwise supports the trial court’s departure from an equal property distribution in [plaintiff’s] favor, the trial court’s dispositive ruling was equitable in light of the relevant circumstances.” Affirmed.