The standard used to determine whether the trial court has abused its discretion is whether the court, in view of all the circumstances, so exceeded the bounds of reason that no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.
After an extended trial involving a dissolution of marriage between petitioner and respondent, a judgment of dissolution was entered. Later, the appellate court reversed and remanded. Following the second trial, the court limited the scope of discovery and admissibility of evidence to the date of the judgment of dissolution, divided the marital property and its award of rehabilitative maintenance, and declined to substitute other collateral for property awarded to respondent. An appeal followed.
(1) Did the trial court err in limiting the scope of discovery and admissibility of evidence to the date of the judgment of dissolution; abuse its discretion in its division of marital property and award of maintenance; and not substituting other collateral for a property award?
The court affirmed the trial court's disposition of marital property and the award of maintenance and attorney fees between respondent wife and petitioner husband. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it limited the scope and admissibility of the evidence to the date that the judgment of dissolution was entered.