Nicholas Raymond Innerbichler v. Carole Jean Innerbichler
752 A.2d 291 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The appreciation in value of a pre-marital business is considered marital property if the increase results from the active efforts, management, and contributions of the owner-spouse during the marriage, rather than passive factors like market forces or inflation.
Facts:
- In October 1982, Nicholas R. Innerbichler co-founded Technical and Management Services Corporation (TAMSCO) with a business partner, holding a 51% ownership interest.
- On January 21, 1984, Nicholas Innerbichler married Carole Jean Innerbichler. At the time of the marriage, TAMSCO was a fledgling company with minimal assets and revenue, operating out of the partner's kitchen.
- In April 1984, after the marriage, TAMSCO obtained a Small Business Administration (SBA) 8(a) certification, which enabled it to secure lucrative government contracts.
- Throughout the marriage, Nicholas Innerbichler served as TAMSCO's President and CEO, exercising 'total control' over its day-to-day operations and making all final decisions.
- Under Nicholas Innerbichler's leadership during the marriage, TAMSCO's revenues grew from approximately $52,000 in 1983 to over $51 million by 1997.
- During the marriage, Carole Jean Innerbichler worked at TAMSCO for a period as personnel director and served as the primary caretaker for the couple's home and child.
- In 1995, after eleven years of marriage, the parties separated.
Procedural Posture:
- Nicholas R. Innerbichler (Husband) filed a Complaint for Limited Divorce in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, the trial court of first instance.
- Carole Jean Innerbichler (Wife) filed a counter-suit seeking an absolute divorce.
- Following an eight-day trial, the circuit court granted the divorce and issued an order awarding the Wife a monetary award of $2,581,864.75 and alimony.
- The trial court based the monetary award on its finding that the appreciation in value of the Husband's 51% interest in TAMSCO was marital property.
- Nicholas R. Innerbichler, as appellant, noted a timely appeal of the circuit court's final order to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the appreciation in value of a spouse's pre-marital business, resulting from that spouse's active efforts during the marriage, constitute marital property subject to equitable distribution?
Opinions:
Majority - Hollander, Judge.
Yes. The increase in value of a pre-marital asset is marital property when that appreciation is attributable to the active efforts of either spouse during the marriage. The court distinguished between passive appreciation, which remains non-marital, and active appreciation resulting from the owner-spouse's work, which becomes marital. Here, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that Nicholas Innerbichler was the 'architect of TAMSCO's growth' and the 'driving force' behind its success. He served as President and CEO, made the ultimate decisions, and was acknowledged by the company's own board as being personally responsible for its growth. Therefore, the court found that the entire appreciation of TAMSCO during the marriage was the result of his active efforts, and his 51% share of that appreciation constituted marital property. The court also held that potential, speculative tax liabilities should not be used to reduce the company's valuation for purposes of a monetary award. However, the court found the trial judge had erred in calculating the pre-marital value of the husband's interest due to a misrecollection of his testimony and remanded for reconsideration of that specific calculation.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of the 'active versus passive appreciation' doctrine to a pre-marital business. It solidifies the principle that a spouse's direct, managerial efforts that cause a separate property asset to increase in value transform that appreciation into marital property. The decision emphasizes that courts will look beyond the pre-marital origin of a business to the source of its growth during the marriage. This precedent is significant for divorces involving family businesses or closely-held corporations, as it prevents a titled spouse from shielding the fruits of their marital labor from equitable distribution.
