Dianna L. Holm, Plaintiff and Appellant
Thomas J. Holm, Defendant and Appellee
from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Steven L. Marquart, Judge.
Gehrig (argued) and Jessica L. Busse (appeared), P.O. for
plaintiff and appellant.
J. Aldrich, for defendant and appellee.
VandeWalle, Chief Justice.
1] Dianna Holm appealed from a judgment granting her a
divorce from Thomas Holm and dividing their marital property.
We conclude the district court's treatment as
compensation of dividends received from stock purchased from
Thomas Holm's employer, and the court's valuation and
award of the stock, are not clearly erroneous. We affirm the
2] The parties were divorced in June 2016 after a 24-year
marriage. One of the parties' major assets was stock they
purchased from Thomas Holm's employer which amounted to a
ten percent ownership interest in the closely-held company.
The district court found the annual stock dividends were part
of Thomas Holm's compensation from the business. The
court valued the stock at $25, 000, the amount the parties
had paid for it, and awarded the stock to Thomas Holm. This
resulted in a net property distribution to Thomas Holm of
$76, 240.07 and a net property distribution to Dianna Holm of
$77, 440.07. The court denied Dianna Holm's subsequent
motion for amended findings and for a new trial.
3] The issues raised by Dianna Holm in this appeal concern
the district court's treatment, valuation, and award of
the stock purchased from Thomas Holm's employer.
4] In Adams v. Adams, 2015 ND 112, ¶ 13, 863
N.W.2d 232, we said:
When a divorce is granted, the district court makes an
equitable distribution of the parties' property and
debts. N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(1). This Court reviews a
district court's distribution of marital property as a
finding of fact, and will not reverse unless the findings are
clearly erroneous. McCarthy v. McCarthy, 2014 ND
234, ¶ 8, 856 N.W.2d 762. "A finding of fact is
clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of
the law, if there is no evidence to support it, or if, after
reviewing all the evidence, we are left with a definite and
firm conviction a mistake has been made." Id.
(quoting Hoverson v. Hoverson, 2013 ND 48, ¶ 8,
828 N.W.2d 510). We view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the findings, and the district court's
factual findings are presumptively correct.
McCarthy, at ¶ 8. Valuations of marital
property within the range of the evidence presented are not
clearly erroneous. Dvorak v. Dvorak, 2005 ND 66,
¶ 20, 693 N.W.2d 646. A choice between two permissible
views of the evidence is not clearly erroneous if the
district court's findings are based either on physical or
documentary evidence, or inferences from other facts, or on
credibility determinations. Fox v. Fox, 2001 ND 88,
¶ 14, 626 N.W.2d 660.
5] Dianna Holm argues the district court erred in finding
that the annual dividends received from the stock constituted