
    LEVISON v. LEVISON.
    ,1. Divorce — Property Settlement — Alimony—Child Support— Discretion op Trial Court.
    Order of trial court setting out property settlement and alimony and child support to be paid by defendant husband held, not so unfair or unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of discretion.
    2. Same — Property Settlement — Marital Property.
    Exclusion by the trial court of certain assets from the marital property held, a proper exercise of discretion when the evidence of ownership was conflicting and it cannot be said that the trial court’s determination was clearly erroneous.
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1,2] 24 Am Jur 2d, Divoree and Separation §§ 827, 839, 842, 929, 930, 933.
    Appeal from Oakland, Roberts (Farrell E.), J.
    Submitted Division 2 May 7, 1968, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 3,595.)
    Decided September 23, 1968.
    Complaint by Pauline F. Levison against F. Robert Levison for a decree of divorce and property settlement, and an award of alimony and child support. Defendant counterclaimed for divorce. Judgment of divorce and property settlement granted to plaintiff, and alimony and child support awarded. Defendant appeals. Plaintiff cross-appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Hartman, Beier, Howlett & McConnell, for plaintiff.
    
      Parulc & Miller, for defendant.
   Per Ctjriam.

Pauline F. Levison was granted an absolute divorce from F. Robert Levison, who appeals claiming the trial court abused its discretion in the valuation and division of the marital property and in the support and alimony awards. A cross-appeal asserts the court erred in determining title to certain property alleged to be part of the marital assets.

The record contains evidence which adequately supports the trial judge’s valuation of the marital property. His order dividing the property has not been shown to have been so unfair nor does the amount of alimony and child support decreed appear so unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of discretion.

The cross-appeal asserts the court erred in excluding certain assets from the marital property. The evidence of ownership was conflicting and we cannot say the trial court’s determination was clearly erroneous.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

T. G. Kavanagh, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Dalton, JJ., concurred.  