to the parties after Richard's motion for reconsideration. Specifically, he alleges that the trial court changed the figures used to calculate the value of the Caskill home without explaining the change. In its oral findings on the record, the court credited Richard's testimony that it would be nee-essary to make $54,977 in repairs to bring the house up to code, which would increase the house's value to $215,000. The court calculated the value in its spreadsheet by subtracting $54,977 from $215,000. Richard requested reconsideration on the grounds that the outstanding mortgage debt of $24,949 should also have been subtracted, leading to a value for the home of $185,074. The court recalculated the value to account for the mortgage, but changed the amount necessary to make repairs t 015 (<HOLDING>). 29 . Zito v. Zito, 969 P.2d 1144, 1147
holding that retirement benefits are marital property because they would be a form of deferred compensation funded by money earned during the parties marriage holding income tax liability incurred during marriage is one of accepted costs of producing marital income and should be treated as marital debt for purposes of determining equitable distribution of marital estate holding that workers compensation disability benefits received by disabled spouse are marital property only to the extent that they compensate for loss of earnings during the marriage holding that money invested in voluntary investment plan during marriage was marital property because it was property acquired during marriage holding that health benefits earned during marriage are marital asset of insured spouse