
    DALE D. HOVEL v. CORRINE M. HOVEL.
    226 N. W. 2d 750.
    March 7, 1975
    No. 45140.
    
      West, Gowan, DeBoer & McIntosh and John S. Gowan, for appellant.
    
      Dingle & Suk and Robert G. Suk, for respondent.
    Heard before Rogosheske, Peterson, and Todd, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
   Per Curiam.

We have carefully considered the records, briefs, and oral arguments of the parties on this appeal challenging the division of property adjudged below in a divorce action. We conclude that the underlying findings of the trial court are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. Since our decision would have no precedential value, we affirm without extended opinion.

Affirmed.  