Cited by

–03 ¶¶ 27–30 (App. 2014).

On the other hand, if a court finds that waste did not affect the value of the business but did impact other marital assets, the court “may, when apportioning the community property, award money or property sufficient to compensate the other spouse for that waste.” superseded in part by statute on other grounds; ¶ 17 (App. 2014) (“When the court determines one spouse has wasted or dissipated marital assets, it may apportion the community property in a manner designed to compensate the other spou

“When the court determines one spouse has wasted or dissipated marital assets, it may apportion the community property in a manner designed to compensate the other spouse for the waste.” ¶ 17 (App. 2014).

3 STEVENS v. STEVENS Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶8 “We apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the superior court’s division of property, but review the court’s characterization of property de novo.” ¶ 8 (App. 2014).

§ 25-324 for an abuse of discretion “and reverse only when clearly erroneous.” ¶ 6 (App. 2011); ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (division of property); ¶ 11 (App. 2010) (factual determinations); ¶ 20 (App. 2016) (attorney’s fees).

§ 25- 318(C); ¶ 17 (App. 2014).

¶¶ 26-27 (App. 2014) (affirming trial court’s award of spousal maintenance where spouse presented opinion evidence showing it was unlikely she would be able to return to work within three to five years).

r in contempt of court when he failed to pay spousal maintenance and child support and declined to award attorney fees to Mother.1 I. Court’s Determination of Spousal Maintenance Termination ¶8 We review a trial court’s spousal maintenance determination for an abuse of discretion, and will uphold the decision if there is “any reasonable evidence to support it.” ¶ 22 (App. 2014).