Kaptur and Kaptur

An issue may be considered on appeal as long as the appealing party raised the issue below with enough particularity to assure that the trial court can identify its alleged error and correct the error if it is warranted

Loreen Kapture (wife) appealed a dissolution judgment. Wife asserted that the equalizing payment was too large based on the trial court’s incorrect finding that the parties had a $33,600 debt on their home. Wife presented evidence at trial that the debt on the parties’ home was approximately $68,000. However, the trial court stated that the debt was $33,600. Both parties’ post-trial submissions agreed that the debt set by the court was incorrect. Husband contended that the incorrect finding was not preserved for appeal. In determining whether the issue was preserved for appeal, the Court looked at whether the policies behind the requirement--judicial efficiency, full development of the record, and procedural fairness to the parties and the trial court--were met. The Court concluded that wife sufficiently preserved her claim of error after presenting evidence regarding the debt at the time of trial as well as the submittal of additional materials to the court demonstrating the amount of debt. The Court remanded the case for the trial court to determine a just and proper division of the property based on the correct amount of equity in the house at the time of trial. Property division vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed.