AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In a divorce proceeding, the district court had to determine whether a certain debt owed to Compass Bank was the separate debt of the husband, who owned and operated a business remodeling and reselling residential properties, or a debt of the community. The husband had taken out a home equity line of credit for his business, which the wife co-signed, but she had no access to the line of credit. Additionally, there was a dispute over whether the wife took or damaged the husband's property.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant (Husband): Argued that the debt incurred during the marriage should be considered community debt, as it was used for community activities including vacations and other recreational uses. Also contended that the wife took or damaged his property.
• Respondent-Appellee (Wife): Testified that the line of credit was exclusively for the husband's business and not for personal trips, challenging the classification of the debt as community debt and denying taking or damaging the husband's property.

Legal Issues

• Whether the debt owed to Compass Bank was the husband's separate debt or a debt of the community.
• Whether the wife took or damaged the husband's property.

Disposition

• The district court's determination that the debt owed to Compass Bank was the husband's separate debt was affirmed.
• The district court's finding that the wife did not take or damage the husband's property was affirmed.

Reasons

• IVES, Judge (with MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge and KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge concurring):
  The court reviewed the classification of the debt de novo and the findings of fact for substantial evidence, noting a presumption that debt incurred during marriage is community debt unless rebutted (paras 2-4).
  Substantial evidence supported the finding that the debt was the husband's separate debt, based on credible testimony from the wife and other unchallenged findings indicating the debt was for the husband's business and not for community benefit (paras 2-6).
  The husband's argument that the wife took or damaged his property was dismissed due to a lack of specific attack on any finding by the district court, rendering the court's findings on this issue binding on appeal (para 8).