Yes. The husband gets to keep the increase in the house's value that happened before he got married. It's not fair to make him share that growth with his wife, because it happened when the house was just his. The court said the fair way to split it is to first give the husband the value of his ownership on the wedding day. Then, you look at how much the house's value grew *during* the marriage. That increase is shared between the husband and the couple's shared finances, based on how much each contributed to paying off the original loan.

The court was mostly right. The house and land were split based on who paid what, but we need to recalculate it. The stocks were shared because the husband couldn't clearly show he bought them with his own money. Retirement money should be valued when it's actually paid or at the trial, not when they separated. It was okay for the court to decide that the husband should help pay for the wife's lawyer because the court has the freedom to make that decision.

We agree with the court about the stocks, retirement money, and lawyer fees. But we're sending the house and land decision back to be recalculated.

For the house and land, we should give the husband credit for how much the value went up before they got married. Using a special formula and counting this increase in value, the husband should get $150,643.25 and the wife should get $18,711.75.

For the stocks, the husband didn't prove they were just his. He didn't keep good records and mixed up the money too much. So it's fair to say the stocks bought during the marriage belong to both of them.

The retirement money should be valued at the trial date or when it's paid, not when they separated. This is fair because it lets the wife share in any increase in value.

Lastly, it's okay for the court to say the husband should pay $2,500 for the wife's lawyer. The court is allowed to decide this, even if the wife got a lot of property in the divorce.

So, we're keeping the decisions about stocks, retirement money, and lawyer fees the same, but we're asking the court to recalculate the house and land split.

Property acquired by purchase during a marriage is presumed to be community property, and the burden is on the spouse asserting its separate character to overcome the presumption.

The mere commingling of separate with community funds in a bank account does not destroy the character of the former if the amount thereof can be ascertained.

Evidence which merely establishes the availability of separate funds on particular dates without also showing any disposition of the funds is not sufficient proof of tracing to overcome the presumption in favor of community property.

The burden of establishing a spouse's separate interest in presumptive community property is not simply that of presenting proof at the time of litigation but also one of keeping adequate records.

The need of a spouse for an award of attorney's fees and the amount of that award are matters addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.

Yes. In calculating the respective property interests in a separate property asset, the court must credit the separate property estate with the prenuptial appreciation before apportioning the appreciation that occurred during the marriage. The court found that existing formulas, such as the one in In re Marriage of Moore, did not account for appreciation occurring between the purchase of separate property and the date of marriage. To achieve an equitable result, the separate property spouse should receive the benefit of this pre-marital growth in value. Therefore, the separate property interest includes the owner's equity at the date of marriage (fair market value minus the outstanding loan), plus a pro rata share of the appreciation that occurred during the marriage. The community's interest consists of its total contribution to principal payments plus a pro rata share of the appreciation that occurred during the marriage.

No. The trial court did not err in its determinations. The house and leasehold were correctly adjudicated based on the proportionate contributions of separate and community funds. The stocks were deemed community property because husband failed to adequately trace the separate funds used for their purchase. The retirement benefits are to be valued at the date of trial or payment, not separation. The award of attorney's fees was within the court's discretion and not excessive given the circumstances. 

I affirm the trial court's rulings on the stocks, retirement benefits, and attorney's fees. However, I reverse and remand on the house and leasehold issue for recalculation using the formula from In re Marriage of Moore. 

Regarding the house and leasehold, the trial court should have credited husband's separate property interest with the prenuptial appreciation in value. Using the Moore/Lucas/Aufmuth formula and accounting for the prenuptial appreciation, husband's separate property interest should be $131,931.50, plus half of the $37,423.50 community interest, for a total of $150,643.25. Wife's share is $18,711.75.

For the stocks, husband failed to overcome the presumption of community property. His records and expert testimony were inadequate to directly trace the source of funds for each stock purchase to his separate property. He indiscriminately commingled funds and failed to keep proper records. The trial court properly found the stocks purchased during marriage to be community property.

The retirement benefits should be valued at the date of trial or payment, not separation, as this allows the non-employee spouse to share in any increased value. The judgment on this issue is affirmed.

Finally, the $2,500 attorney's fee award to wife was within the court's discretion and not excessive, even considering the substantial community property she was awarded. The award is affirmed.

In summary, I affirm the judgments on stocks, retirement benefits and attorney's fees, but reverse and remand on the house and leasehold issue for recalculation consistent with this opinion.

In Re Marriage of Marsden

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot