Malmquist v. Malmquist
106 Nev. 231, 1990 Nev. LEXIS 42, 792 P.2d 372 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a residence is acquired as separate property before marriage but community funds contribute to the mortgage, the property's appreciation is apportioned pro rata using a formula that credits each estate based on its contributions to principal and the number of mortgage payments made. Community-funded improvements to separate property are treated separately and are generally compensated by simple reimbursement of their cost.
Facts:
- In June 1967, Kenneth Malmquist purchased a residence on Wedekind Road with his former spouse, Delores, for $36,500, making a $2,500 down payment.
- Before marrying Nancy Malmquist, Kenneth made mortgage payments that reduced the principal by $1,037.
- In October 1970, Kenneth divorced Delores and paid her $4,200 for her interest in the home.
- Kenneth and Nancy married on December 12, 1970.
- During their seventeen-year marriage, Kenneth and Nancy used community funds to make mortgage payments, reducing the principal by approximately $14,463.
- The couple also used funds to make improvements costing $62,707, which included a $25,000 kitchen remodel (conceded to be community property) and a $37,707 greenhouse addition.
- The funds for the greenhouse came from a joint checking account where Kenneth had deposited proceeds from the sale of his separate property, the 'I Street' apartment building.
- The couple separated around March 1986.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Malmquist filed for divorce from Kenneth Malmquist in a Nevada district court (trial court).
- The district court issued a judgment and decree of divorce, dividing the couple's community property.
- The court calculated the community and separate property interests in the marital residence using its own methodology, which included the cost of improvements in the purchase price.
- The district court also found that Kenneth failed to trace funds for a greenhouse improvement to his separate property and classified it as community property.
- Kenneth Malmquist (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Nevada, challenging the method of property apportionment. Nancy Malmquist is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When apportioning the value of a residence that was separate property before marriage but was paid for and improved with community funds during the marriage, what is the proper method for calculating the community and separate property interests in the home's appreciation?
Opinions:
Majority - Róse, J.
No, the district court's apportionment method was improper. The court adopts a modified version of the formula from In re Marriage of Moore, which establishes a presumptive method for apportioning community and separate property interests in the appreciation of a residence. The court reasoned that a standard formulaic approach is necessary to ensure that similarly situated persons receive consistent and equitable distributions. The court modified the Moore formula by rejecting the principle that credit for the outstanding loan balance is assigned based on the character of the original loan (separate or community). Instead, it adopted a time-rule approach where credit for the unpaid loan balance is allocated pro rata according to the total number of monthly payments made from separate or community sources. The court found this 'time rule' to be fairer as it avoids giving a windfall to the party making later payments when the principal portion of payments is higher. Finally, the court held that improvements should be analyzed separately from appreciation and are generally compensable by simple reimbursement of their cost to the contributing estate.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in Nevada by adopting a specific mathematical formula, the modified 'Moore' formula, for apportioning interests in a marital residence with mixed separate and community contributions. This shifts the state's jurisprudence from a purely discretionary, case-by-case analysis to a more predictable, presumptive standard, promoting consistency across divorce proceedings. The court's modification of the Moore rule to a 'time rule' for the outstanding loan balance is a notable refinement designed to produce more equitable outcomes. Furthermore, by creating a distinct rule of simple reimbursement for improvements, the decision clarifies a separate, common issue and prevents the cost of improvements from distorting the apportionment of market-driven appreciation.
