A farm couple’s marriage ended in divorce. After the wife moved out, but before the husband filed for divorce, he planted wheat and triticale. The couple stipulated that the marital estate was to be valued as of the date of the divorce filing. However, they could not agree as to the value of the growing crops. The district court valued the crops “somewhere above the actual input price and somewhere below the gross return.” The wife alleged on appeal that the district court erred in its valuation, as well as in failing to properly account, with its method, for the value of the crop insurance and subsidy payments. In affirming, the court ruled that a district court has broad discretion when dividing the property of a marital estate and that its decision will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse. The court found that the district court reasonably valued the growing crops in a manner consistent with Kansas law. The district court heard the evidence and weighed the potential economic value of a mature crop against the potential risk associated with an immature crop to arrive at a value "somewhere above the actual input price and somewhere below the gross return." The district court's valuation of $152,500 was supported by the evidence and was well within the wide discretion a trial court must exercise when dividing marital property. The court also ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion accounting for the tractor repair expenses or in refusing to award post-judgment interest on the equalization payments the husband paid to the wife. In re Marriage of Stevenson, 2 No. 109,497, 014 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 384 (Kan. Ct. App. May 16, 2014)