court explains the ration.1e for its property division, we will not disturb it on appeal unless the court abused its discretion. Wade, 2005 VT 72, ¶ 13. Section 751 provides that the court may consider “all relevant factors” in deciding how to divide a marital estate, including the nonfinancial contributions of the parties as homemakers and their respective merits. 15 V.S.A. § 751(b). ¶ 29. Here, the court found that the marriage was a short-term marriage and that most of the assets were acquired through mother’s parents. However, it noted that mother would likely continue to be supported by her family and her prospects of acquiring additional wealth through inheritance were substantially better than father’s. See Billings v. Billings, 2011 VT 116, ¶ 23, 190 Vt. 487, 35 A.3d 1030 (<HOLDING>). It found that father had made significant
holding in a chapter 7 consumer debt case the nondebtor spouses income is not  rendered liable for the debts of the debtor but rather is simply  considered in determining whether the debtor himself has available discretionary income by virtue of the fact that he and the nondebtor spouse share a joint household holding that a trial judge should not consider a spouses anticipated social security benefits as a factor in distributing the marital assets holding that employers refusals either to consider whether the plaintiff deserved a promotion or to provide the employee with training opportunities thereby decreasing future promotion opportunities were not ultimate employment decisions holding that the corpus of an inheritance is not included in a parents gross income but that the interest generated by an inheritance is holding that 15 vsa  751b8 permits the court to consider a spouses possible future inheritance in determining opportunities of each spouse to acquire capital assets and income in the future