court found, there were none of the ordinary indicia associated with a typical loan and mother’s parents never demanded repayment until the divorce was set for a contested trial. Although mother’s parents and mother testified that everyone understood at the time of each advance that the money was to be treated as a loan, father disputed that testimony, stating that his attempts to discuss repayment conditions were always brushed aside. The family court con.1uded that there was no ration.1 way to view the monetary contributions except as gifts, and proceeded to treat the property as a marital asset unencumbered by the claims of mother’s parents. The court acted within its discretion in valuing the property in this way. See Nuse v. Nuse, 158 Vt. 637, 638, 601 A.2d 985, 986 (1991) (mem.) (<HOLDING>). ¶23. We do not agree with mother’s argument
holding trial court abused its discretion when it struck the appellants intervention holding that family court acted within its discretion in refusing to subtract debt to appellants mother from value of appellants home where it found that money provided was more a gift than a loan holding that it was within family courts discretion to assign all debt to one party when court found that party to be at fault for debt holding that appellants mother had the authority to consent to search of defendants bedroom defendant lived with parents rentfree for four years mother owned the house appellants bedroom door was open mother knocked whenever appellants door was locked and there were no restrictions placed on mothers right to enter bedroom holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a motion to sever separate charges of rape committed against the appellants two nieces