[U] Heise V. Heise

¶1. Carl Heise appeals that part of his divorce judgment ordering property division and child support. He argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it relied upon a premarital agreement to exclude his excavating business from the marital estate. Alternatively, Carl contends the trial court erroneously determined that certain debts were business debts, thereby excluding them from the divisible marital estate. As a second alternative argument, Carl claims that by failing to consider the interest he pays on business debt, the court erroneously calculated his income available for child support purposes. Because the record fails to support his arguments, we affirm the judgment.