1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___

____ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: January

31, 201 8 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 4523 5 JOHNN Y A . G ABRIELE, 6 Pe tit ion er -Appe llant, 7 v. 8 D EB ORR

A H L . GA BRIE LE , a/k /a 9 DEB BIE GA BRIE LE, 10 Respondent -Appellee. 11 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF CO LF AXCO UN TY 12 Sa ra h C . Ba ck

us , D ist ri ctJu dg e 13 Michael D anoff & A ssociates, P. C. 14 Michael L . D anoff 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 fo r Appe llant 17 Kam m & McC onnell, L. L. C. 1 8 T e rr e n c e R

. K a mm 19 Rat on , NM 20 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 HAN ISEE, Judge. 3 { 1} T he f

orm al opi nio n f

ile d inthi s c as e on J anua ry 3, 2018 , is her eb y

w ith dr aw n, 4 and this o pinio n is sub stitut ed in its place. 5 { 2} H usband a

ppe al s th e dis tr ic t cour

t’ s divis ion of pr ope rty tha t re sul te d fr om the 6 part i e s’ d i ss ol ut i ono f

m a rr i a ge . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , H us band

c on t e nd s t he d i str i c tc ourt 7 er re d by f ai lin g to dis tri bu te a ll pr ope rty a nd f ind ing tha t f

our sol e an d se pa ra te 8 property

ag re ements that Husband sign ed shortly before H usband filed for divorce 9 w er e va lid

. F or

the r ea sons discu sse d be low , w e af fi rm in pa rt , r ev er se in pa rt , a nd 10 re m an d f

or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs. 11 BACKGRO UND 12 { 3} John ny G ab ri el e (H usband) an d D eb or rah G ab ri el e (W if

e) w er e m ar

ri ed on 13 February

15, 2006. Husband filed a petition for divorce on July 22, 2013. A trial w as 14 held to determ ine how the m arital property would be divid ed, after which the parties 15 subm itted propo sed finding s of fac t and conclusio ns of law. The district court issu ed 16 its de ci sio n and o rd er in w hic h it

gr an te d di sso lut ionof

the part ie s’ m ar

ri ag e an d 17 dis tr ibu te d th e m ar ita l pr ope rty , inc lud ing r ea l e sta te , c as h, oth er a sse ts, and 18 lia bil iti es .2

1 { 4} Husband appealed and m akes the following claim s: (1) the district court err ed 2 by c onc lud ing tha t the sol e an d se pa ra te pr ope rty ag re em en ts ( SS PA s) tha t H usband 3 sig ne d w er e va lid , e nf

or ce ab le c ontra ct s; ( 2) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in its dis tr ibu tio n 4 of the parties’ m arital re sidence—kno wn as the F rancis H om e—w hich Husband had 5 a c q u i r e d p ri o r t o m ar ri ag e; an d(3 ) t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt fa i l ed t o ad d re s s Hu s b an d ’s 6 c l a i medi n t e r e s t s

—b o t h s e p a r a t e a n dc o mm u n i t y— i n v a r i o u s o t h e r p r o p e rt y, 7 inc lud ing a19 55 Chev ro le t tha t W if e ha d gi ve n hi m

a s abir thd ay gif t, apr ope rty 8 located in Te xas (the Te xas property ), and W ife’ s incom e earned during the m arria ge. 9 W e ad dr es s ea ch of H usband’ s cla im s in turn , re se rv ing dis cu ssi on of m or e spe ci fi c 10 fa ct s w he n pe rt ine nt t o our le ga l ana ly sis

. 11 I. Wheth er t he F our SS PA s Are Valid, Enf orceable C ontracts 12 A. Ad ditional Fact s 13 { 5} In200 7, W if

e— w ho h ad aba ck gr ound

a s a nur sin g hom e adm ini str at or an d a 14 Ma ste r’ s de gr ee in busi ne ss— start ed a n a ssi ste d li vin g bu sin es s c al le d C olf ax S en ior 1 5 C a r e , L L C ( C S C ) , al i m i t e dl i ab i l i t y c o m p an y ( L L C ) i n w h i c h W i f

e w a s t h e s ing le 16 registered m em

ber. CSC purchased a residential property (262 Francis) out of which 17 to o pe ra te a n a ssi ste d li vin g f ac ili ty f or $92 , 000. W if

e te sti fi ed

tha t the “ start -u

p 18 m one y ” fo r CS C cam e fr om $50, 000 of he r se pa ra te sa vin gs an d a$20 , 000 loan f ro m 19 her chil dren. H usband testified that he contributed $ 29,000 from his sm aller3

1 re tir em en t f

und fo r the dow n pa ym en t on 262 Fr an ci s an d tha t he part ic ipa te d inthe 2 busi ne ss b y he lpi ng to re m ode l an d m ai nta in the fa ci lity . W if e dis put ed tha t H usband 3 co ntr ibu te d any

f unds to pur ch as e 262 Fr an ci s. T he dis tr ic t cour t re sol ve d this dis put e 4 in H usband’ s f

av or , f ind ing tha t H usband “ co ntr ibu te d a ppr oxi m at el y

$29 , 000 of

his 5 se pa rat e fu nd s t o [t he ] pu rch as e [o f 26 2 F ran ci s].” 6 { 6} CS C w as ex pa nde d in 2009 -1 0 in or de r to m ee t gr ow ing de m an d in the 7 co m m uni ty , a nd the bus ine ss p ur ch as ed alot ( 251 Fr an ci s) on w hic h to c onstru ct a 8 new, larg er

f ac ili ty

. Bo th p ar

tie s a gr ee tha t H usband c ontri but ed $10 , 000 fr om

his 9 re tir em en t savin gs t o pu rc ha se 251 F ranc is a nd l oa ne d C SC $80 , 000 to c onstru ct the 10 ne w f ac ili ty

. CS C t ook out

a$52 8, 000 ba nk loa n to fi na nc e the r em ai nde r of the 11 co nstru ct ionpr oj ec t. 262 F ranc is w as sol d a ft er 251 F ranc is o pe ne d. 12 { 7} In Jul y 2012 , W if e start ed m ak ing plans to ex pa nd the busin es s again, 13 inc lud ing c onstru ct ionof a ne w , $1. 5 m ill ion fa ci lity . A cc or din g to W if e, w he n sh e 14 dis cu sse d he r ex pa nsi on p lans w ithH usband, he w as “ ad am an t tha t [ she ] not do i t” 15 be ca use he w as c once rn ed about “ [s ] o m uc h li ab ili ty [, ] ” both f

inanc ia l and l eg al

. 16 W ife consulted a b u s i n es s lawy er a bout form ing a new L LC for the expanded 17 busi ne ss tha t c oul d be W if e’ s separa te pr ope rty in ord er to r el ea se H usband f ro m a ll 18 liabilityassociated with the newbusin ess. T he lawy er helped W ife “ drawup the new 19 L L C” a nd i nf

orm ed he r tha t sh e “ co uld

c re at e a doc um en t” that would pu t “ al l the19 T he r ec or d do es not spe ci fy CS L ’ s da te of

c re at ion

. 1 4 1 liability , f

inancial, legal” on W ife. W ife testified that H usband wa s “ very pleased that 2 ther e wa s . . . aw ay

tha t w e co uld

both have w ha t w e w an te d. I t w as agoo d 3 co m pr om is e.” 4 { 8} On Ap ril 25 , 20 13 , th e p art ie s s ig ne d fo urSSPAs . In a dd it io n t o t wo SS PAs 5 de sig na tin g, r es pe ct ive ly , the ne w L L C (C olf ax S en ior L ivi ng, L L C ( CS L )) a nd the 6 pr ope rty for

the ne w f

ac ili ty ( the S ta te S tr ee t pr ope rty ) as the se pa ra te pr ope rty of 7 W if e, the re w er e tw o S SP A s th at de sig na te d C SC ( the ex ist ing L L C) an d 251 F ranc is 8 (the existing assi sted livin g facility ) as W ife’ s sepa r at e p r op erty . T he SSP As provided 9 that Husband “ expressly wa i v es , relin quish es, and releases any and all right, title, 10 cl ai m , or

int er es t i n and t o” both pi ec es of r eal pr ope rty a s w el l a s th e L L Cs ’ 11 “ Mem bership Interest.” Af

ter H usband and W ife sig ned the SSPA s, W ife continued 12 w iththe de ve lop m en t of CS L

. Sh e pur ch as ed the St at e Stre et pr ope rty in May 201 3 1 13 for $120,000 with m oney from “ [her] busin ess” and two bank loans. How ever, once 14 div or ce pr oc ee din gs co m m en ce d inJul y

201 3, W if

e de ci de d no t t o go f

or w ar d w ith 15 the e xpansi on p ro

j ec t. 16 { 9} A t the tim e of tr ia l, CS C w as unde r co ntr ac t f or sa le f or $62 0, 000. S ubse que nt 17 to trial, a fter the sa les transaction was c om pleted and CSC’ s debts were paid off, 18 $257 ,461.26 wa s placed in the regist ry o f t h e court. Regarding CSL , W ife testified17 T he dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e the se fi ndi ngs in i ts am en de d de ci sio n and o rd er a s a 2 18 result of this Court’s order of lim ited re m and for entry of detailed findings of fac t 19 co nc er

nin g w he the r ea chof

the f our S SP A s w as sup porte d by c onsi de ra tio n. 5 1 that she believed the plans for the S tate Stre et pro je ct t h at she had com

m issio ned 2 w er e se lla

ble but tha t she w as not aw ar e of an y one w ho w as int er es te d inpur ch as ing 3 the pr oj ec t. S he a lso de sc ri be d CS L ’ s outst an din g debt s, but the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t 4 m ak e an y

spe ci fi c fi ndi ngs or

c onc lus ion s r eg ar din g th e am ount of tho se de bts

. 5 { 10} Husband argued to the district court that he “ rece ived no con sideration” und er 6 the S SP A s, the re by

inv al ida tin g th em , a nd tha t W if e “ br ea ch ed

he r fi duc iary

duty to 7 [H usband] by he r co nve rs ion of co m m uni ty pr ope rty to he r sol e and s epar at e 8 property .” W ife contended that “ [t] he considerati o n fo r t h e [S SPA s] wa s to free 9 [H usband ] of all liability and debt associated with the busi ness then and in the future, 10 w hic h w as c onsi de ra ble

. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound tha t H usband “ de sire d to be 11 relieved of r espons ibilityfor existing debt and liabilityof both com panies, and future 12 de bt and l ia

bil ity of the bus ine sse s and the pr ope rty ” an d c onc lud ed tha t “ [b ] y sig nin g 13 the ag reem en ts [H usband] w as r el ie ve d of r es pons ibi lity

f or the de bt a s w el l a s th e 14 lia bil ity

. ” A s su ch , the dis tr ic t c ourt aw ar de d W if e, a m ong oth er

thi ngs, 251 F ranc is, 2 15 the State S treet property , C SL and its as s et s, and CS C—includin g the entire 16 $257 , 461. 26 o f pr oc ee ds f ro m the sa le of

CS C— al l su

bj ec t t o de bt the re on.12 A s th is C ourt ha s pr ev iou sly e xpl ai ne d, S ec tio n 40 -3 -8 m er el y “ de al s w ith 3 13 cl as se s o f pr op ert y

an d n ot wit h h ow p ro pe rty m ay be ch an ge d to a di ffer en t cl as s.” 14 E sta te of F le tc he r v . J

ac ks on , 198 0- N MC A -0 54, ¶ 45, 94 N

. M. 572 , 613 P

. 2d 7 14; 13 see § 40-3-8(A)( 5) (defining one ty pe of “ separate property ” as “property designated 14 as se pa ra te pr ope rty by aw ri tte n a gr ee m en t be tw ee n th e spou se s, inc lud ing ade ed or 15 oth er w ri tte n a gr ee m en t co nc er nin g pr ope rty he ld b y

the spo use s . . . [ , ] in w hic h th e 16 pr ope rty

is de si gnate d a s se pa ra te pr ope rty ”)

. W if e fa ils to ex pla in h owc om ing 17 w ith in the statut or

y c la ssi fi ca tio n of

“ se pa ra te pr operty ” al one r en de rs the 18 SS PA s—whic h a tte m pte d to tr ansm

ute c om m uni ty pr ope rt y to se pa ra te 19 pr ope rty

—va lid , en fo rc ea

ble co ntr ac ts. T o the ex te nt W if e ar gue s tha t S ec tio n 40 -3

- 20 8( A)(5 ) is di sp os it iv e of th e q ue st io n wh et he r th e p ro pe rti es id en ti fie d i n t he SSPAs 21 are W if

e’ s se pa ra te pr ope rty , w e re j ec t su cha rg um en t a s un supp orte d by a ny 22 au th or it y . Se e Cu rryv . G re at N w. I ns. Co

. , 201 4- NMCA -0 31, ¶ 28, 320 P

. 3d 4 82 23 (“ Where a

party cites n o authority to sup port an argum ent, w e m ay assum e no such 24 authorityexists.”). 6 1 B. A na lys is 2 { 11} Husband relies on general principles of c ontract lawand argues that the district 3 court err ed in concludi ng that th e SS PA s are valid bec au s e (1) they lacked m utual 4 as se nt, a nd ( 2) W if

e’ s pr om ise of re le as ing H usband fr om lia bil ity w as ill usor

y , thu s 5 the y al so la ck ed va lid co nsi de ra tio n. W if e re lie s on the de fi nit ion of “ se para te 6 pr ope rty ” co nta ine d i n NMSA 1978, S ec tio n 40 -3 -8 ( 1990 ), to supp ort the va lid ity 7 o f t h e d es i g n at i o n o f th e b u s i n es s es an d p ro p er t i es i d en t i fi ed i n t h e S SP As as Wif e’s 8 se pa ra te prope rty . N ei the r pa rty ha s a ddr es se d th e im

port of N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 3 9 40- 2- 2 ( 1907 ), w he re in the L eg isl at ur e statut or ily

se t f orth the c ontract ri ght s of 10 m arri ed pe rs on s. W e b eg in wit h t he st at ut e. See H ughes v. H

ughes , 198 1- N MS C- 110, 11 ¶ 19, 96 N. M. 719, 634 P. 2d 1 271 (“ InN ewMe xic o, tr an sa ct ion s be tw ee n hu sbands7

1 and wives ar e governed by Sec tion 4 0-2-2[.] ”); P rim us v . Clark , 194 4- N MS C- 030, 2 ¶ 13, 48 N

. M. 240 , 149 P

. 2d 5 35 ( ex pla ini ng that “ [t ] ransa ct ion s be tw ee n hu sband 3 an d w if

e ar e co ntr oll ed

by the

. . . sta tut e” a nd ana ly zi ng t he ch al le nge d a gr ee m en t 4 within the context of the statut e). 5 1. Sect ion 40-2-2: Cont ract Rights of Marr ied P ersons 6 { 12} InN ewMe xic o, “ [e ] ith er hus ba nd o r w if

e m ay en te r int o any

e nga ge m en t or 7 transaction with the other, or with any other person respecting property , w hich either 8 m ight, if unm arrie d[.] ” Se ction 40 -2-2. How ever, such transactions between spous es 9 ar e subj ec t to “ the ge ne ra l rul es of co m m on law w hic h contro l the a ct ion s of pe rs ons 10 o cc u p ying confidential relations with each other. ” Id

. I nte rp re tin g th is s ta tut e, our 11 Su pr em e Co urt h as he ld tha t transa ct ion s be tw ee n sp ouse s inw hic h on e spou se 12 “ secured a decided advantage over the [other] ” ar e “presum ptivelyfra

udul ent.” B ea ls 13 v. Ares , 1919 -N MSC- 067, ¶¶ 73, 82, 90, 25 N. M. 459, 185 P. 780. That is beca use a 14 husb an d and w if

e ar e fi duc iari es upo n whom a re im pose d “ ‘ the obl igati on o f 1 5 e x e r c i s i n g t h e h i g h e s tg o o df a i t h t o w a r d s [ e a c h o t h e r ] i n a n y d e a l i n g b e t w e e n t h e m, 16 an d [ w hic h] pr ec lud e[ s e ac h] f ro m obt ai nin g any

a dvanta ge ove r [the oth er ] by m eans 17 of any m isrepresentation, concealm ent, or a dverse pressure. ’ ” Id

. ¶ 76 (quot ing w ith 18 ap pr ova l Dolliver v. Dolliver , 30 P

. 4, 5 ( Ca l. 1892 ) (i n bank) ); se e P rim us , 194 4- 19 NMS C-030, ¶ 15 (explaining that the statute gov erning the contract rights of m arrie d18 Co nstru ct ive f ra ud i s “ a br ea ch of a le ga l or equ ita ble duty ir re spe ct ive of

the 4 19 m or al gui lt of

the f ra ud f ea sor , a nd i t i s no t nece ss ary tha t a ct ua l di shon es ty

of 20 purpos e nor intent to deceive exist.” Sne ll v. Co rne hl , 197 0-NMS C-029, ¶ 8, 81 N. M. 21 248, 466 P

. 2d 9 4. 8 1 persons “ crea tes in law a fiduciary relationship b etwe en husban d and wife” ). In such 2 ca se s, in or de r to o ve rc om e the pr es um pti on o f fr au d, it is the duty of the spou se w ho 3 ha s ga ine d th e adva nta ge “ to s how (a ) the pa ym en t of a n a de qua te c onsi de ra tio n, ( b) 4 fu ll dis cl osur e by him

[ or he r] a s to the r igh ts o f the [ oth er ] a nd the va lue a nd e xte nt 5 of the c om m uni ty pr ope rty , a nd ( c) tha t the [ oth er ] ha d c om pe te nt and i nde pe nde nt 6 advice i n conferr ing the benefits upon [him or her] .” B ea ls , 1919 -N MS C- 067, ¶ 90. 7 Where the a dvantaged sp ouse fails to m ake this showing, the district court is to “ set 8 asid e th e [ag re em en ts]

. . . in que sti on, to as ce rt ai n th e va lue a nd e xte nt o f the 9 co m m uni ty pr ope rty , . . . a nd to div ide the c om m uni ty pr ope rty be tw ee n th e 10 parties[. ] ” Id

. ¶ 93. 11 2. W he ther Wife Gaine d a D ecide d A dvantage Over Hu sband, Ther eby 12 Cr eating a P resum ption of C onstruc tive F raud 13 { 13} Whe re one spou se re ce ive s gr oss ly ina de qua te co nsi de ra tio n fo r fo rf ei tin g hi s 14 or her intere st in com

m unity property , the other spou se is considered to have gained 15 a decided advantage through constructive fraud, rendering the transaction void able. 4 16 Se e P rim us , 1944-NMS C-030, ¶¶ 12, 21, 22 (concluding th at there e xisted a “ legal 17 pr es um

pti on of co nstru ct ive f

ra ud” w he re the w if

e re ce ive d on ly

$1, 000 fr om

the9

1 co m m uni tye sta te w orth $ 50, 000) ; B ea ls , 191 9- N MS C- 067, ¶ ¶ 72, 82 ( co nc lud ing 2 that the husb and had “ secured a dec ided advantage ov er the w ife” wh er e the w ife 3 re ce ive d on ly

$4, 000 an d he r int er es t i n th e subj ect pr op erty w as be tw ee n $3 5, 000 4 an d $7 5, 000)

. O ur

S upr em e Co ur t ha s a lso f ound c onstru ct ive f

ra ud w he re one 5 sp ou se “ ha d a nd to okan ad va nt ag e in th e m at te rs su rro un di ng th e co nv ey an ce o f .

. . 6 property .” Tr uji llo v . P adi lla , 196 8- N MS C- 090, ¶ 6, 79 N. M. 245, 442 P. 2d 2 03. T he 7 m ain questio n we are concerned w ith is whether the parties were “ bargaining on an 8 eq ua l fo ot in g” in sa ti sf act io n of the ir fid uc ia ry du ti es to on e an ot he r. P rim us , 194 4- 9 N MS C

- 0 3 0 , ¶

¶ 1 5 , 2 1

. Wh e r e t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h e y w e r e n o t , w e m a y f ind 10 co nstru ct ive f

ra ud. 11 { 14} He re, th e re co rd indicates that the net value of CSC w as $257,461 .26 as 12 re fl ected by t he pr oc ee ds p la ce d inthe r eg istry of the c ourt f

oll ow ing the sa le a nd 13 paym ent of debts of CSC. Thus, Husband’ s one-half com m unity inte re s t was 1 4 ap pr o x i m a t e l y

$ 1 2 8 , 0 0 0

. U n d e r

t h e S S P A s , H u s b a n dr e c e i v e d$ 0 i n e x c h a n g e f or 15 convey ing hi s interest to W ife. Even a ssum ing Husband received the non-m onetary 16 “ co nsi de ra tio n” of

be ing r elieved of

a ll fi na nc ia l and l eg al li ab ili ty by sig nin g th e 17 SS PA s a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt f ound , H usband’ s c onsi de ra ble f or fe iture su ppor

ts a 18 pr es um

pti on o f co nstru ct ive f

ra ud. A ddi tio na lly , w e not e tha t pr io r t o a s k i n g H usband 19 to s ignthe S SP A s, W if e ha d c onsu lte d adiv or ce a tto rn ey a s w el l as abus ine ss19 G ive n th at CS C an d CS L w er e se t up a s si ngl e- m em be r L L Cs w ithW if

e as the 5 2 0 memb e r

a n dt h a tt h e r e a l p r o p e rt y a ti s s u e ( 2 5 1 F r a n c i s a n d t h e S t a t e S t r e e tp r o p e rt y) 10 1 at tor ne y , a nd i t w as W if

e w ho dra ft ed

a nd p ro vi de d H usband w iththe S SP A s. T he 2 re co rd c ont ai ns n o in dic at iontha t H usband—tho ugh he ha d ac ha nce to r ev ie w the 3 SS P A s p r i o r

t o s i g n i n g t h e m

—h a di n d e p e n d e n tc o u n s e l r e g a r d i n g t h e a g r e e m e nts

. 4 Ba se d onthe f

or eg oin g fa ct s, al ong w ith our sta tut or y au tho ri ty

a nd l eg al pr ec ed en t, 5 w e co nc lud e tha t W if

e ga ine d ade ci de d a dvanta ge ove r H usband thr oughthe S SP A s. 6 W e, the re fo re , ne xt co nsi de r w he the r W if e m et he r bur de n to show (a ) pr ovi sio n of 7 ad equa te co nsi de ra tio n, (b ) fu ll dis cl osur e to Hu sband as to his rig hts an d exte nt o f 8 the com

m unityproperty , and (c) that Husband had com petent and ind ependent legal 9 ad vi ce p rio r to si gn in g t he SSPAs

. Se e B ea ls , 191 9- N MS C- 067, ¶ 90. 10 3. Wheth er Wife MetHer Burd en of P roving She M et He r F iduciary D uties 11 in Ent ering Int o the S SP As With Husband 12 { 15} T he part ie s pr im ar ily f oc us the ir a rg um en ts o n w he the r there w as suf fi ci en t 13 ev ide nc e of co nsi de ra tio n to supp ort the c ontra ct

. H ow ev er , w e ne ed not de ci de the 14 questio n of con s ideration because, e ven assum ing arguendo that the district court 15 properly

concluded that the SSPA s we re sup ported by adequate co nsideration, there 16 is no ev ide nc e tha t (1 ) W if e dis cl ose d to H usband the va lue of the pr ope rt ie s and 17 busin esses to be convey ed or H usband ’ s rights—and , im portantly , potential 18 liability —therein; and (2) H usband had received com petent and ind ependent advice 514 w as the pr ope rty of the L L Cs , w e fa il to se e— an d the pa rt ie s fa il to ex pl ai n—how 15 H usband h ad an ype rs ona l f inanc ia l r es pons ibi lity

or le ga l l ia bil ity f or a ny of the 16 su bjec t p ro pe rti es to be gi n wi th

. See NMS A 197 8, § 53-19-13 (199 3) (providing that 17 “ the de bts , obl iga tio ns and lia bil iti es of a [L L C] , w he the r ar isi ng i n c ontra ct , tor t or 18 oth er w ise , sha ll be sol el y the de bts , obl iga tio ns and l ia bil iti es of the [ L L C] ”)

. T o th e 19 extent he did no t, this would supp ort Husband’ s argum ent that the district court erred 20 in co nc lu di ng th at th e SSPAs were s up po rte d b y co ns id erat io n. See H

urley v. Hurley , 21 1980 -N MS C- 067, ¶

16, 94 N

. M. 641 , 615 P. 2d 256 ( ex pla ini ng tha t “ a pr om ise to do 22 w ha t a

party is al re ady

obl iga te d by

c ontra ct or law to do i s no t su ff ic ie nt 23 co ns id erat io n fo r a p ro m is e m ad e in ret ur n” ), ov er ru le d on oth er gro unds by 24 E lls wo rth v . E lls wo rth , 198 1- N MS C- 132, ¶ 6, 97 N

. M. 133 , 637 P

. 2d 5 64. 11 1 pr io r to si gn in g th e SSPAs

. Se e B ea ls , 1919 -N MS C- 067, ¶ 90. T he und isp ute d f ac ts 2 of this case are that W ife had a Ma ster’ s d eg ree in bus iness, w as an experienced 3 busi ne ss w om an , a nd w as in ch ar ge of m an ag ing a nd d ec isi on- m ak ing f or the 4 busi ne ss. I t i s a lso undi sput ed tha t Hu sband had a high sc hool ed uc at iona nd w as not 5 invo lved in th e m anagem ent of th e b usiness , other than providing general 6 m aintena n ce wo rkat the assisted livin g facility . P articularly in ligh t of this po we r 7 im ba lanc e an d W if

e’ s do m inant p osi tio n r es pe ct ing the bus ine ss, it w as im pe ra tiv e 8 that W ife disclose to Husband the bu siness’s as sets and his righ ts therein and that 9 H usband h av e ind ep en de nt c ouns el in co nsi de ri ng the r am if ic at ion s of en te ri ng i nto 10 th e SSPAs

. Se e F

ate v . O we ns , 2001 -N MC A -0 40, ¶ 25, 130 N

. M. 503 , 27 P

. 3d 9 90 11 (“ [A ] f

idu ci ar y [] is re qui re d to f

ull y dis cl ose m at er ia l f

ac ts and i nf

orm at ionr el at ing 12 to the [f

idu ci ar y re la tio nshi p]

. . . e ve n if

the [ one to w hom

the duty is ow ed ] ha [s ] not 13 asked for the inform ation. . . . T he duty of disclosure is a hallm ark of a fiduciary12

1 relationship .” (internal quotation m arks and citations om itted)). Cf. Unser v. Unser , 2 1974 -N MS C- 063, ¶

¶ 16- 17, 86 N

. M. 648 , 526 P

. 2d 7 90 ( ex pla ini ng tha t i n or de r fo r 3 the re to be pr es um

pti ve f ra ud, on e par

ty m ust be “ in the dom inant p osi tio n[ , ] ” an d 4 fi ndi ng n o pr es umpti on o f fr au d be ca use it w as “ que sti ona

ble a s to w he the r the 5 re la tio nshi p of dom inanc e” ex ist ed w he re the w if e ha d be en“ advis ed

by ind ep en de nt 6 legal counsel” prior to sign ing th e agre em ent). 7 { 16} B e c au s e t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t Wi f e f a i l e d t o me e t h e r

b u r d e n t o o v e r c o me 8 the pr es um

pti on o f co nstru ct ive f

ra ud, w e hol d th at

the S SP A s—e ve n if va lid ly 9 fo rm ed —wer e v o i d a bl e at Hus ba nd ’s ele ct io n a nd m us t b e se t as id e. Se e Tr uji llo , 10 1968 -N MS C- 090, ¶

7; B ea ls , 1 9 1 9 -N M SC -0 6 7 , ¶ 9 3 . We r ev er s e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 11 distribu tion o f the properties covere d by the SSP As and r emand for f urther 12 pr oc ee din gs i n li ght

of thi s op ini on. 13 II. Wh et he r th e D ist ri ctC ou rtEr re d in D ist ri bu ti ng t he Eq ui ty in t he F ra nc is 14 H o me 15 { 17} H usband arg ue s th at th e di st rict c ourt e rr ed

in its dis tr ibu tio n of

the F ranc is 16 Hom e by

failing to awar d him

his $30 ,000 separate property interest i n t he hom e, 17 w hic h w as the dow n paym en t he m ad e w he n he pur ch as ed the hom e pr ior

to m ee tin g 1 8 Wif e. Wif e a rg u es t h at t h er e w as s ub s t an t i al ev i d en ce t o s up p o rt t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 19 finding s an d co nclusio ns regarding dist ribution of the Fr ancis Hom e, which w ere 20 pr em ise d up on the c onc lus iontha t w ha te ve r se pa ra te int er es t H usband p oss es se d in13

1 the F ranc is H om e w as tr an sm ute d to a co m

m uni ty int er es t. W e ag re e w ithH usband 2 tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

. 3 A. Stand ard of R eview 4 { 18} T o th e ex te nt H usband arg ues th at th er e is an in suf fi ci en t f ac tua l ba sis to 5 supp ort the district court’ s finding s of fact regarding the Francis H om e, “ we review 6 the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to su pp or t the [ dis tr ic t] c ourt’ s f ind ing s, 7 re sol vin g a ll co nf

lic ts and i ndul gin g a ll pe rm iss ibl e inf er e n c e s i n f

av or of the de ci sio n 8 below. ” Jo nes v . Sc hoe llk opf , 200 5- N MC A -1 24, ¶

8, 138 N

. M. 47 7, 12 2 P. 3d 8 44. 9 How ever, to the extent Husband attacks the dis trict court’s conclusions of law 10 re sp e c t i ng t he F r a nc i s H om e

— i nc l ud i ng t ho se f i nd i ng s t ha t f

un c tion as 11 co nc lu si on s— ou r rev ie w is de no vo . Se e id. ; se e als o Be navidez v. B enavidez , 200 6- 12 N MC A -1 38, ¶

21, 140 N.M. 637, 145 P

. 3d 1 17 ( “ W e ar e de fe re nti al to fa ct s f ound 13 by the dis tr ic t co urt, but w e re vie w co nc lus ion s of law de novo . ”)

. W e al so r ev ie w de 14 novo que sti ons of l aw, in cl ud in g t hr es ho ld de te rm in at ion s r eg ar din g whe the r pr ope rt y 15 is s ep ar at e or

c om m uni ty or w he the r the c om

m uni ty ha s acq uire d an in te re st i n 16 se pa rat e p ro pe rty. Se e Arn old v . A rnol d , 200 3- N MC A -1 14, ¶

6, 134 N

. M. 381 , 77 1 7 P. 3 d2 8 5 (e x p l ai n i n g t h at “ t h e t h re s h o l dqu es t i o n o f w h et h er[t h e h ]u s b an d ’s 18 ac cu m

ula te d va ca tio n le av e an d sic k le av e ar e co m m uni ty pr ope rty is a que sti on o f 19 law , w hic h w e re vie w de nov o” ); R oss v . Ne gron -R oss , 201 7- N MC A -0 61, ¶ 7, 40014

1 P. 3d 3 05 ( ex pla ini ng tha t “ [w ] he the r the dis tr ic t co urt er re d in fi ndi ng no c om

m uni ty 2 li en on th e Sp rin g C reekres id en ce [(s ep arat e p ro pe rty)] is a qu es ti on of la w th atwe 3 reviewde novo”). 4 B. Th e D ist ri ctC ou rtEr re d in C on cl ud in g T ha t th e Fra nci s H om e Was 5 Transm uted Fr om Husband’ s Separate Pr operty t o Com m unity P ropert y 6 { 19} T he dis tr ic t cour t e nte re d th e fo llo w ing f

ind ing s of

f ac t r eg ar din g th e Fr an ci s 7 Hom e: 8 5. Pr ior

to the m arri ag e, in 2004 , [ H usband] ha d pu rc ha se d [ the 9 Fr an ci s H om e]

. T he pur ch as e pr ic e w as $14 7, 000 an d [ H usband] 10 ha d m ad e anappr oxi m at e $30, 000 dow n- pa ym en t. 11

. . . . 12 14. So on af

te r the m ar

ri ag e, [ H usband] tr an sf

er re d th e [F ranc is 13 H om e] to h im se lf a nd [ W if e]

. T he part ie s r ef

inanc ed the de bt o n 14 the hous e to get a m ore favorable interest rate. [H usband ] testified 15 tha tt he r e a so n he d i d so w a s be c aus e h e b e l i e ve d m a rr i a ge w as 16 “ sa cr ed

. ” T his a ct tr an sm ute d th e [F ranc is H om e] int o c om m uni ty 1 7 p r o p e rt y. 18 15. D ur ing the m ar ri ag e, the pa rt ie s m ad e the m ortga ge paym en ts and 19 m ad e ap pr oxi m at el y $40 , 000 w orth o f im

pr ove m en ts t o th e 20 hous e. At the tim e of trial the value of the [Francis Hom e] wa s 21 $150 , 000. N o a ppr ai sa l w as of

fe re d. ( [H usband ] es tim at ed the 22 va lu e at $1 40 ,00 0 a nd [W ife ] es ti m at edth e v a l u e at $1 60 ,00 0.) 2 3 T h e r e i s $ 9 4 , 0 0 0 o w i n g o n t h e m o rt g a g e . T h e e q u i t y in the 24 pr ope rty is ap pr oxi m at el y

$56 , 000. 25 Fr om the se fi ndi ngs, the dis tr ic t cour t conc lud ed , “ T he F ranc is [ H om e] is co m m uni ty 26 pr op ert y . The p art ie s are en ti tl ed to on e-h al f each of th e $ 56 ,00 0 e qu it y

in th e h ou se .”10 We n o t e that two day s after subm itting her w ritten closing argum ent, W ife 6 11 filed a docum ent titled “ Supplem ent to Closin g Argum ent” in which she cited in her 12 “ lis t of

auth or iti es ” thi s C ourt’ s de ci sio n in M ac ias v . M ac ias , 199 8- N MC A -1 70, 126 13 N

. M. 303 , 968 P

. 2d 8 14, a nd p ro vid ed th e fo llo w ing pare nth et ic al e xpl an at ion s: 14 “ (S ep ar at e pr ope rty , the [ Fr an ci s H om e] , pla ce d in j oin t ow ne rs hip a lon g w ithint en t 15 to tr an sm

ute re sul ts i n tr an sm

uta tio n) a nd ( Co urt sh oul d c onsi de r fa ct or s 1) de ed to 16 co m m uni ty , 2) m ortga ge by

c om m uni ty , 3) int en t of gr an tor , 4) c om m uni ty paym en t 17 of m ortga ge , ta xe s, m ai nte na nc e an d up gr ad es ) an d ( pr ope rty a cquir ed dur ing 18 m ar ri ag e pr es um ed

to be c om m uni ty a nd bur de n re sts w ith pr ote sti ng spou se to p ro ve 19 otherwise). ” H owever , W ife cited no other authority and offer ed no additi onal 20 ar gum en t or

a na ly sis to supp ort a

f ind ing of t ran smuta tio n. W if e’ s a ppe lla te 21 ar gum en ts—

w hic h m ak e no re fe re nc e to transm uta tio n or c ite a ny

r el ev an t auth or ity 22 to defend the district cou rt ’s conclusio n that a transm utation occurre d—further 2 3 s up p o rto u r

u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a ti tw a s n e v e r Wi f e ’s p o s i t i o n t h a tt h e F r a n c i s H o me 24 was tra ns m

ut ed

. Se e Sta te ex re l. H

um an Se rv

s. D ep ’t v. Sta

ples ( In re D oe ), 198 2- 25 N MS C- 099, ¶

¶ 3, 5, 98 N

. M. 540 , 650 P

. 2d 8 24 (ex pl ainin g th at appe lla te c ourts 26 shou ld not rea ch issues that th e parties have f ailed to raise in their briefs)

. 27 E ve n th oughW if e as se rt ed in he r pr opos ed fi ndi ngs tha t H usband d ee de d th e 7 28 Fr an ci s H om e to h im se lf a nd W if e “ w iththe int en t t o m ak e the pr ope rty c om m uni ty 15 1 { 20} The f

irst flawin the district court’ s conclus ion is th at W ife never contended 2 tha t H usband’ s se pa ra te int er est in th e Fr an ci s H om e ha d be entr an sm ute d in to 3 co m m uni ty pr ope rty . W if

e’s cl ai m s and c ont en tio ns— as w el l a s he r ope nin g and 4 cl osi ng arg um en ts t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt— re ve al tha t W if

e bel ie ve d she w as e nti tle d to 5 ei the r (1 ) re im

bur se m en t of

one -h al f of the $40, 000 of im pr ove m en ts the c om

m uni ty 6 m ad e to the F ranc is H om e, or ( 2) one -h al f of

the r em ai nin g “ co m

m uni ty e qui ty ” in 7 the hom e af

te r H usband w as r ep ai d hi s do w n paym en t. In oth er w or ds, the pos iti on 6 8 W if e too k and h er

pr opos ed dis tr ibu tio n of

pr ope rty e vin ce he r be lie f tha t the F ranc is 9 H o me w a s H u s b a n d ’s s e p a r a t e p r o p e rt y. Se e Tr eg o v . Sc ott , 199 8- N MC A -0 80, ¶ 5, 715 pr ope rty [, ] ”w ith in tha t sa m e pr opos ed fi ndi ng W if e sugg es ts the inher en tly 16 co nt rad ic to ry

co nc lu si on th at“ [i]f [Hu sb an d] ge ts cred it for h i s $3 2,0 00 do wn 17 pa ym en t the re is sti ll $34, 000 in co m m uni ty equity . ” In oth er

w or ds, W if

e’ s a sse rt ion 18 as to H usband ’ s intent cannot be reconciled with the w ay in which she calculated her 19 claimed i n t erest in the Fr ancis Hom e, i.e ., as a c omm unitylien rather than an 20 undi vid ed

one -h al f int er es t. I f W if e w as tr uly c la im ing tha t H usban d in te nde d to 21 transm

ute the Francis H om e from his separ ate property to comm unityproperty , W ife 22 w oul d have c la im ed

one -h al f int er es t in the fu ll equity of the hom e ra the r than th e fu ll 23 equity

m inus Husband ’ s down paym ent (separate property ). 16 1 125 N.M. 323, 961 P. 2d 168 (explaining that the wife had “ conceded, by her chosen 2 m ethod of calculatin g t h e m o n i es due her, that the properties in disp ute rem ained 3 se pa ra t e ” b e c au s e t h e w i f e ’ s “ o w n c o m

p u t a t i o n s ” r e v e a l e d t h a t s h e a s s u m e dthe 4 co m m uni ty ’s i nt erest w as a n a ppor tio ne d in te re st i n th e inc re as ed va lue of the 5 se pa rate pr ope rty ). A s w e dis cu ss b el ow , W if e onl y c ont en de d th at

the re w as a 6 com m unitylien on the Francis Hom e, which would entitle W ife to a differ ent, lesser 7 int er es t i n th e Fr an ci s H om e than w oul d the co nc lus ion tha t a tr an sm uta tio n oc curr ed

. 8 { 21} The sec ond and m ore proble m at i c flaw in the district court’ s conclusio n that 9 a trans m

ut a t i on ha d oc c ur

r e d i s t ha t i t i s c on t r a ry t o N e w M e xi c o c a se l a w , w hich 1 0 e s t ab l i s h e s ah i g h l e g a l s t a n d a r df o r p r o v i n g t r a n s m

u t a t i o n . “ T r a n s m

u t a t i on is a 11 ge ne ra l t er

m use d to de sc ri be a rr an g e m en ts b etw ee n sp ouse s to c onve rt pr ope rty f ro m 12 separate property t o co m m unityproperty

and vice versa. ” Allen v. Allen , 198 2- 13 NMS C-118, ¶ 13, 98 N .M. 652, 651 P. 2d 1296. While Ne w Mexic o recogn izes 14 tr an sm

uta tio n, thi s C ourt ha s e xpl ai ne d th at “ [t ] he spo use w ho arg ues in fav or of17

1 t r a n s mu t a t i o n c a rr i e s wh a th a s b e e n v a r i o u s l y d e s c r i b e da s a‘d i f f i c u l t ’ o r a‘h e a v y’ 2 burden[.] ” M

ac ias , 1998 -N MCA -170, ¶ 12. T ransm utation m ust be proven b y

“ clear 3 and convin cing evidenc e o f s p o u s al intent to do so.” Id

. A de ed , oth er

doc um en t 4 showing joint title, or m ortgage note alone is no t conclusiv e of intent to transm ute. 5 Se e id. ¶ 13 (e xpl ai nin g tha t “ a de ed or oth er doc um en t show ing j oin t tit le doe s no t 6 transm ute separate property if there is no intent to do so” and that “ a m ortgage m ay 7 be evidence of such intent to transm ute, but it is not conclus ive and is not , by itself, 8 subs tanti al ev ide nc e of int en t to transm ute ” (o m iss ion , em

pha sis , int er

na l qu ota tio n 9 m ar ks, a nd c ita tio n om itt ed ))

. Pr ovi ng “ tr an sm uta tio n re qui re s evid en ce of int en t on 10 the part of the grantor spouse.” Id

. 11 { 22} H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s fin di ngs m ak e cl ear tha t i t r el ie d onthr ee thi ngs to 12 supp ort its conclusi on that transm utation occurre d: (1) that soon after m arria ge, 13 H usband “ tr an sf

erre d th e [F ranc is H om e] to him se lf a nd [ W if e; ] ” (2 ) tha t H usband 1 4 an dWif

e “re fi n an ce dt h e d eb to n t h e h o u s e t o g et a m o re fa v o ra b l e i n t er es tra t e[ ; ]” 15 a nd ( 3) H us band ’ s st a t e m e nt t ha t he “ t ho ug ht be i ng m a rr i e d w a s ki nd of a sacr ed 1 6 t h i n g ” w h e n a s k e db y h i s a t t o rn e y w h a th i s i n t e n t i o n w a s w h e n h e a d d e d Wi f e ’s n a me 17 to the dee d. Now here did the district c ourt f ind th at H usband intended to m ake a gift 18 to W if

e or c re at e in h er

an undivid ed

one -h al f int er es t i n th e Fr an ci s H om e. A nd 19 indeed, under N ewMexico transm utation law and given (1) the absence of evidence18

1 in the r ec or d in dic at ing tha t H usband h ad the r equis ite int en t t o e ff

ec t transm

uta tio n, 2 (2 ) the f

ac t tha t W if

e co nc ed ed

tha t the F ranc is H om e was H usband’ s se pa ra te 3 property , and (3) that W ife em ploy ed a li tigation strategy designed to protect only

her 4 int er es t i n th e co m

m uni ty li en on the pr ope rty , it c oul d no t have . W e hol d th at the 5 d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s c o n cl u s i o n t h at t h e F ra n ci s Ho m e w as t ra n s m u t ed fr o m Hu s b an d ’s 6 se pa rat e p ro pe rty int o c omm un it y pro pe rty is i nc or rect as a m at te r of la w. Thu s, we 7 re ve rs e the dis tr ic t co ur t’s aw ar d to W if e of a n auto m at ic one -h al f int er es t i n th e 8 Fr an ci s H om e’ s e qui ty

. T he que sti on tha t r em ai ns, the n, is to wha t po rt ion —i f 9 an y —of the e qui ty

in the F ranc is H om e is W if e en tit le d? 10 C. Ac quisition of a C om m unity Int erest i n Se pa rate P ropert y and 11 A pp or ti on m en t Th er eo f 12 { 23} A s pr e vi ou sl y

n ot e d, W i f

e ’ s po si t i ondur i ng t r i a l w a s t ha tt he m a r ital 13 com m unity had acquired an interest in the Francis Hom e of w hich W ife w as entitled 14 to one-half. W ife’ s prim ary argum ent in t h is regard w as that the com m unityhad 15 co ntr ibu te d $4 0, 000 to v ar iou s ho m e im pr ove m en ts—in cl udi ng the a ddi tio n of 16 “ ha rdw ood fl oor s, alarg e nice de ck , som e ne w doo rs , ne w w ind owtr ea tm en ts, 17 kitchen, b at hroom , sinks, countertops, kitchen appliances, furniture”—that W ife 18 be lie ve d in cr ea se d th e va lue of the hom e. W ife ini tia lly c ont en de d sh e shou ld 19 “ recov er [ one-half] of the rem odel cost to” the Francis Hom e, or $20,000. In her 20 cl osi ng arg um en t, W if e ad de d ac la im

f or on e-h al f “ the c om

m uni ty e qui ty ” in the18 This f i gur e i s ba se d on a n a ss um pt i on t ha t t he F r a nc i s H om e w a s va l ue d at 8 19 $160 ,000 at the tim e of trial per W ife’ s testim ony

and that there re m ained a balance 20 of $94,000 on the m ortgage. 19 1 hom e, w hic h she ca lc ula te d to b e $17, 000. W if e ar ri ve d a t the f

igu re of $17 , 000 by 2 fi rs t a ssu m ing the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d f ind tha t the re w as $66, 000 in t ota l e qui ty in 3 the hom e , t he n su

btr a c t i ng w ha t W i f

e de sc r i be d a s H us band ’ s “ do w n paym e nt a s 8 4 sol e an d separ at e pr ope rty ( $32, 000) , ” w hic h w oul d le av e $34, 000 in “ co m m uni ty 5 equity ” to w hic h W if

e w oul d be ent itl ed to one -h al f, or $17, 000. W if e co nti nue d to 6 se ek one -h al f of the $40, 000 re m ode l cost in add iti on to the $17, 000 of c om m uni ty 7 equity . A s stated, the district court aw arded W ife one-ha l f ($28,000) of the total 8 equity it de te rm ine d to e xis t i n th e Fr an ci s H om e ($ 56, 000) ba se d onit s c onc lus ion 9 tha t a tr an sm uta tio n oc curr ed

. 10 { 24} Whe re , a s he re , aparty c la im s th at

appr eciat io n du ri ng m ar ri ag e of se pa ra te 11 pr ope rty

is ow ing to co m

m uni ty c ontri but ion s, appor

tio nm en t i s th e pr ope r m ethod 12 of determ ining the respective interests—i.e. , separate and comm unity —in the asset 13 up on di ss ol ut io n. Se e D orbi n v. D orbi n , 198 6- N MC A -1 14, ¶ 15, 105 N

. M. 263 , 731 14 P. 2d 9 5 9

. “ [A ]p p o rtionm ent is a legal concept that is properly applied to an asset 15 ac qui re d by

m ar ri ed pe opl e w ith m ixe d m oni es —tha t i s, part ly w ithc om m uni ty a nd 16 partly with separa te funds.” Id

. ¶ 29 ( i nt e rna l qu ot a t i on m a rks om i t t e d)

. A n “ asset 17 acq ui red ” m ay

in cl ud e th e in crea se d e qu it y in on e sp ou se ’s sep arate real pro pe rty. See20

1 id. ¶ ¶ 11, 24, 27 ( ap portio nin g th e “ ap pr ec ia tio n e qu ity ” in the w if e’ s se pa ra te ly 2 owned t ownhouse between the w ife’ s separate intere st and the comm unity ’ s interest); 3 se e als o M

ic he lso n v . M

ic he lso n , 197 6- N MS C- 026, ¶ ¶ 20- 22, 89 N

. M. 282, 551 P. 2d 4 638 (a ff

irm ing the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ppor tio nm en t of

the e qu it y in the part ie s’ 5 hom e

— w h i c h w a s o r i g ina lly a cq uir ed w ith the hus ba nd’ s se pa ra te 6 pr ope rty

—be tw ee n “ co m

m uni ty e xpe ndi tur es of

ti m e, e ff

ort and m one y ” (the 7 co m m u n i t y’ s i n t er es t ) a n d“ t h e n o rmal ap p re ci at i o n o f p ro p er t y” (t h e h u s b an d ’s 8 separate intere st)). 9 { 25} T o de te rm ine w he the r ap portio nm en t i s a p p r o p r ia te , the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust f ir st 10 de ci de w he the r the c om m uni ty ha s, in fa ct , acq ui red an int er es t i n th e se pa ra te 11 pr op ert y . See Martin ez v. Block, 1993 -N MC A -0 93, ¶ 13, 115 N

. M. 762 , 858 P

. 2d 4 29 12 (“ Apport io nm en t i s a ppr opr ia te onl y

w he n an a sse t ha s be ena cquir ed or it s e qui ty 13 va lue inc re as ed

thr oughthe use of both se pa ra te a nd c om m uni ty f unds

. ”)

. I f the re is 14 no evi de nc e of a com m uni ty int er es t in th e equity of se pa ra te pr ope rty , the se pa ra te 15 interest is entitled to th e full value of the property and apportion m ent is not p roper. 16 Se e H er tz v

. H er tz , 198 3- N MS C- 004, ¶

¶ 22- 23, 99 N. M. 320 , 657 P

. 2d 1 169 (h old ing 17 tha t the husb an d wa s e nti tle d to the f ull va lue of

appr ec ia tio n of

his se pa ra te pr ope rty 18 rather than on ly “ proportio nate appreciation” w here there wa s no eviden ce to suppo rt 19 ap po rti on m en t o f th e ap pr eci at io n)

.21

1 { 26} In ge ne r a l , w he n pr op e rt y i s “ a c qu i r e d a s se par a t e pr op e rt y , i t r e t a i ns such 2 ch ar ac te r ev entho ugh co m m uni ty f unds m ay

later be e m

plo y ed in m ak ing 3 im provem ents or discharging an indebtedness thereon.” Ca m pbe ll v. Ca m

pbe ll , 195 7- 4 NMS C-001, ¶ 80, 62 N. M. 330, 310 P.2d 266 . H owever , the c omm unitym ay acquire 5 an interest in—specifically a lien on—separate property wher e the com

m unit y’ s 6 co nt rib ut io ns ha ve en ha nc ed th e va lu e of th e se pa ra t e p r o p ert y . Se e R oss , 201 7- 7 N MC A -0 61, ¶

8 ( “ T he c om

m uni ty is

. . . e nti tled to a li en ag ai nst the se pa ra te 8 pr ope rty

of aspo use f

or the c ontri but ion s m ad e by the co m m uni ty tha t e nhanc ed

the 9 va lue of

the pr ope rty

dur ing m ar

ri ag e. ”). Co ntr ibu tio ns b y the c om m uni ty do n ot, 10 al on e , g i v e ri se to a co m m un it y in te res t. See M

artin ez , 199 3- N MC A -0 93, ¶ 12 11 (e xpl ai nin g th at

“ the sim ple f ac t tha t the c om

m uni ty ha s e xpe nde d f

unds or la bor on 12 a separa te asset does not, by itself, giv e rise to either a com m unity interest in the asset 13 or ar igh t t o r ei m

bur se m en t f

or m one y spe nt o n th e as se t” ). Ra the r, it is on lythe 14 inc re as e— if

a ny —i n th e va lue of

the a sse t attr ibu ta

ble to co m

m uni ty c ontri but ion s 15 th at is ap po rti on edam on g s ep arat e an d c omm un it y in te res ts

. Se e Ju rado v . J urad o , 16 1995 -N MC A -0 14, ¶ 10, 119 N

. M. 522, 892 P. 2d 9 69; Martinez , 199 3- N MC A -0 93, 17 ¶ 11 (“ [U ] nde r N ew Me xic o law the co m m uni ty is en tit le d to an equit ab le li ena ga ins t 18 [a spo use ’ s] se pa ra te pr ope rty onl y to the ex te nt tha t the c om m uni ty c ansho w tha t i ts 19 funds or

la bor e nhanc ed the va lue of the pr ope rty or inc re as ed the e qui ty int er es t i n 20 the pr ope rty . ”) . “ Any i nc rease in the va lue of se pa ra te pr ope rty

is pr es um ed

to be22

1 se pa ra te unl es s it

is re but te d by

dir ec t and p osi tiv e evi de nc e tha t the inc re as e w as due 2 to comm

unityfunds or labor.” Ju rado , 199 5- N MC A -0 14, ¶ 11. T he party

c la im ing 3 the e xis te nc e of

ac om m uni ty li enon s ep ar at e pr ope rty be ar s th e bur de n of

pr ovi ng 4 that the pr o p er t y’ s ap p re ci at i o n i s at t ri b u t ab l e t o t h e e x p en d i tu re o f c o m m u n i t y, ra t her 5 th an sep arat e, fu nd s. Se e Tr eg o , 199 8- N MC A -0 80, ¶ 8. 6 { 27} He re, in order to be entitled to a com m unity lien on the Francis Hom e, it wa s 7 Wif e’s b u rd en t o p ro v e t h at s o m e p o rt i o n (u p t o t h e f u l l amo u n t ) o f t h e h o m e’s 8 ap p r e c i a t i o n e q u i t y a tt h e t i me o f d i s s o l u t i o n w a s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e h o me 9 im pr ove m en ts m ad e w ithc om m uni ty f unds a nd/ or the co m

m uni ty ’ s co ntr ibu tio ns t o 10 pa y in g do wn th e pr in ci pa l b al an ce o n t he m or tg ag e. Se e D orbi n , 198 6- N MC A -1 14, 11 ¶ 21; cf

. M itc he ll v. M

itc he ll , 198 6- N MC A -0 28, ¶ ¶ 48- 49, 104 N

. M. 205 , 719 P

. 2d 12 432 (affirm ing the district court’ s calculation of the com m unity ’ s lien and its refusal 1 3 “ t o cr ed i tt h e c o m

m u n i t y wi t h an y a p p r e c i at i o n i n t h e v al u e o f [ t h e h u s b an d ’s 14 se pa ra te ] pr ope rty ” w he re the re w as “ no ev ide nc e as to the va lue of [the cla im ed ] 15 im pr ove m en ts” ). H ow ev er , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s—whic h a ddr es se d th e non16 issue of transm

utation rather than the dispu ted issue of whether the com m unityhad 17 acquired an interest in (to w it, a com m unitylie n on) the Francis H om e—are 18 in su ffi ci en t t o a ll ow u s t o d eci d e w h e th er Wife m ethe r bu rd en . Se e G re en v . G en . 19 Acci de nt

Ins . Co. o

f Am. , 198 7- N MS C- 111, ¶ 21, 106 N

. M. 523 , 746 P

. 2d 1 52 20 (“ When finding s wholly fail to resolve in any m eaningful way the basic issues of fact11 Se e, e . g. , T re go , 1998 -N MC A -0 80, ¶ 13 (“ N o one m ethod of

appor tio nm en t 9 12 is f av or ed abov e al l othe rs ; the tr ia l c ourt m ay use w ha te ve r m ethod w ill a ch ie ve 13 subs tanti al j ust ic e, an d is supp orte d by sub stanti al e vid en ce in the r ec or d. ”) ; D orbi n , 14 1986 -N MC A -1 14, ¶

¶ 23- 24, 31- 33 ( dis cu ssi ng two for m ula s f or appor tio nin g 15 property , one that the D orbi n Court adopted and app lied (the M oore fo rm ula ) an d on e 16 tha t our Su

pr em e Co urt ha d appl ie d ine ar lie r ca se s ( “ fa ir r et ur n” f orm ula )) ; se e als o 17 Ch anc e v. Ki tc he ll , 1983 -N MS C- 012, ¶ 6, 99 N

. M. 443, 659 P. 2d 895 (ex pl ainin g 18 tha t a party c la im ing a co m

m uni ty int er es t in s ep ar at e pr ope rty is en tit le d on ly

to “ the 19 va lu e o f th e im

pr ov em en ts to th e p ro pe rty, not the cost of the im

provem ents” and that 20 “ w he n de te rm ini ng a co m m uni ty int er es t in co m

m uni ty funds ex pe nde d on be ha lf of 21 pr o perty

purchased by

a spouse before m arria ge, the r ule has com

m onlyexcluded 22 pa ym en ts fo r ta xe s, ins ur an ce a nd i nte re st” ); M ic he lso n , 197 6- N MS C- 026, ¶ ¶ 20- 22 23 (a ff irm ing the tr ia l c ourt’ s c al cu la tio n of the va lue of

the c om m uni ty li en on the 24 parties’ hom e (the husband’s separ ate property ) w here the tria l court first d educted 25 fr om the hom e’ s va lue a t the ti m e of tr ia l $1 4, 000 of the hus ba nd’ s se pa ra te pr ope rty 26 used to pu rchase the lot on which the hom e w as built); D orbi n , 198 6-N MC A -1 14, 27 ¶ 21 ( ex pla ini ng tha t the c om m uni ty is “ en tit le d to a lie n fo r m ortga ge paym en ts m ad e 28 with com

m unitym oney , but only

to the e x t en t that the m ortgage principal was 29 reduced”). 23 1 in dis pu te , the y

be co m e cl earl y

ins uf fi ci en t t o pe rm it the r ev ie w ing c ourt t o de ci de 2 the c as e at

a ll. ” (a lte ra tio ns, int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c ita tio n om itt ed ))

. A s su ch , 3 w e re m an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or the e ntr y of f ind ing s of

f ac t onthe que sti on o f the 4 ex is te nc e of a co m

m un it y li en on th e Fran c i s Ho me. See G reen , 198 7- N MS C- 111, 5 ¶ 22 ( “ Whe re the e nds of j ust ic e re qui re, [ anappe lla te c ourt] m ay r em an d ac as e to 6 district cou rt for the m aking of proper finding s of fac t.”) . I f the district court 7 determ ines that the com m unity acquired an interest in the Francis H om e, it m ust then 8 pr oc ee d to ap portio n the equity in the Fr an ci s H om e be tw ee n H usband’ s s ep ara te 9 in te res t and th e co m

m un it y ’s in te res t i n a cco rd an ce wi th New Mex ic o c as e la w. See 9 10 R oss , 201 7- N MC A -0 61, ¶ 12.24

1 { 28} W e em

phasize that we do no t pass on (1) whether the com m unityacquired an 2 interest in Husband’s separ ate property , or (2) the proper apportionm ent of such 3 int er es t, a ssu m ing the e vid en ce su pport s af ind ing tha t on e ex ist s. T hose 4 de te rm ina tio ns m

ust be m ad e in the fi rs t inst an ce on re m an d. W e hold onl y tha t the 5 dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in co nc lud ing tha t t he Fran cis H om e w as tr an sm ute d f ro m 6 H usband’ s se pa ra te pr ope rty to co m m uni ty pr ope rty an d in d istri but ing the e qui ty in 7 the F ranc is H om e in a cc or da nc e w iththa t c onc lus ion

. 8 III. Wheth er t he D istrict C ourt P roper l y Addressed and D istribut ed Ot her 9 Pr operty 10 The 1955 Ch evrolet 11 { 29} H usband arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to m ak e a de te rm ina tio n ab out a nd 12 pr ope rl y

dis tr ibu te H usband’ s in te re sts in a 1955 Ch ev ro le t. A t tri al , H usband 13 te sti fi ed

tha t W if e ha d gi ve n hi m

the c ar f or his bir thd ay in ei the r 2009 or 2010 a nd 14 that because H usband wa s busy , W ife re gistered the car in her nam e. W ife obj ected 15 to H usband’ s te sti m ony ba se d on Hus ba nd ’ s f

ai lur e to i nc lud e the pr ope rty in his 16 cl ai m s and c ont en tio ns, but the dis tr ic t cour

t over ru le d the obj ec tio n and a llo w ed the 17 te sti m ony . H usband the n te sti fi ed tha t the ve hic le w as w orth any w he re f ro m $14 , 000 18 to $20 ,000 and that he had inv ested $5,000 of separate p ro p er t y t o install a new 19 en gin e in the c ar . T he onl y oth er te sti m ony re ga rd ing the 195 5 C he vr ole t w as m ad e 20 dur ing H usband’ s e xpl an at ionof his ba sis f

or be lie vin g th at

W if e was lay ing25

1 gr oundw ork “ to f

ina lly ge t rid of [h im , ] ” a plan th at he sta te d in cl ude d, “ E ve ry thi ng 2 tha t ha ppe ne d th ro ugho ut the m ar ri ag e nowtha t I ope ne d m y e y es . T he [ SS PA s] , the 3 gi vi ng he r da ug ht er t he ho us e, the ‘5 5 Ch ev y le av ing , the D ur am ax le av ing , the m ule 4 le av ing

. ” (E m

pha sis a dde d. ) H usband o ff er ed no o the r te sti m ony

r eg ar din g th e 1955 5 Chevrolet nor did he cross-exam ine W ife about the car. 6 { 30} H usband’ s pr opos ed f ind ing s i nc lud ed

the f oll ow ing r el at ed

to the 195 5 7 Ch ev ro le t: 8 24. [W if

e] ga ve [ H usband] the 195 5 C he vr ole t a s agif t. 9 2 5

. T he e n g i n e i n s t a l l e di n t o t h e 1 9 5 5 C h e v r o l e tw a s t h e s e p a r a te 1 0 p ro p er t y o f [ Hu s b an d ]. 11 26. T he va lue of the 195 5 C he vr ole t w as $20 , 000. 12 27. [W i fe ] a p p ropriated the 1955 Chevrolet and re- gifted it to her 13 ch ildre n or

sol d it

. 14 28. [H usband] did not re lin qui sh or co nse nt to the re m ova l of the 15 1955 Ch ev ro le t. 16 29. [H usband] did not r ec ei ve c om

pe nsa tio n f

or the los s of

the 195 5 17 Ch ev ro le t. 18 H usband’ s r eque ste d c onc lus ion s of law inc lud ed tha t he is en tit le d to c om pe nsa tio n 19 fo r the va lue of

the 195 5 C he vr ole t and r ei m bur se m en t f

or the va lue of

his se pa ra te 20 pr ope rty

in the c ar . W if

e’ s prop os ed f

ind ing s and c onc lus ion s di d no t c ont ai n any 21 m en tio n of

the 195 5 C he vr ole t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t i nclu de an y fi ndi ngs or26

1 conclusio ns regarding the 19 5 5 Ch evrolet in its order, w hich Husband argues 2 co nst itu te d e rr or

a nd r equir es r em an d. 3 { 31} W e first observe that th e d istrict court wa s under no ob ligation to take evidence 4 re ga rd ing pr ope rty

tha t H usband c onc ed ed

a t tri al w as not lis te d inhis c la im s and 5 co nt en ti on s. See R utter v. R utter , 1964 -N MS C- 242, ¶ 17, 74 N. M. 737, 398 P

. 2d 2 59 6 (h old ing tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y re j ec te d ev ide nc e re la te d to a n is sue “ out sid e 7 of the iss ue s r ai se d by

the ple ad ing s” ). O nc e the dis tr ic t c ourt a llo w ed H usband t o 8 test ifyr eg ar din g th e 1955 Ch ev y , how ev er , the que sti on i s w he the r it er re d by not 9 en te ri ng f

ind ing s or

ac onc lusio n aboutthe ve hic le

. I t i s w el l- es ta bli she d th at

a 10 dis tr ic t court ’ s f

ai lur e to m ak e a spe ci fi c re que ste d f ind ing of f ac t c onst itu te s a 11 fin di ng ag ai ns t t he req ue st i ng pa rty. Se e O liv as v . O liv as , 198 9- N MC A -0 64, ¶ 15, 12 108 N.M. 814, 780 P. 2d 64 0. Particularly wher e the re questin g party has the burden 13 of pr oo f as Hus ba nd di d h ere, cf. W allace v. W

anek , 197 0-NMC A- 049, ¶ 9 , 81 N.M. 14 478, 4 6 8 P. 2 d 879 (explaini ng that “ [h] e w ho alleges the affirm ative m ust prov e”), 15 “ the dis tr ic t c our

t pr ope rl y c oul d have de ci de d th at [ the ] hus ba nd d id n ot m ee t hi s 16 bur de n . . . a nd the re fo re c oul d r ej ec t [ the ] hus ba nd’ s pr opos ed f ind ing s of

f ac ts and 17 conclusio ns of law on this m atter. ” O liv as , 1989-NMC A- 064, ¶ 15. H ere, the district 18 co urt—

pr es en te d w ithli ttl e m or e than H usband’ s st an d- al one te sti m ony about “ the 19 ‘ 55 Chevy

leaving” and his assertion re garding its engine—could h ave decided that27

1 H us band w a s no t c r e di bl e a nd f a i l e d t o m e e t hi s bur de n of pr ov i ng t ha t there w ere 2 pr ope rty

int er es ts i n th e 1955 Ch ev y tha t re qu ired di str ibu tio n. “ It is the sol e 3 re spon sib ili ty

of the tr ie r of

f ac t to we igh the te sti m ony , de te rm ine the c re dib ili ty of 4 the witnesses, r econcile inconsist encies, and determ ine wher e the truth lies, and we, 5 as the review ing court, do not weigh the credibility of l ive witnesses.” N. M

. T ax ati on 6 & Reven ue D ep ’t

v . Ca sia s T

ruc ki ng , 201 4- N MC A -0 99, ¶ 23, 336 P

. 3d 4 36 7 (altera tion, internal quotatio n m arks, and citation om itted). 8 { 32} N ot o nly

do w e con cl ude tha t the dis tr ic t cour t did not e rr

in re fu sin g to a dopt 9 H usband’ s pr opos ed

f ind ing s an d

c onc lus ion s r eg ar din g th e 1955 Ch ev ro le t, it w oul d 1 0 h a v e b e e n e rr o r

t o a d o p t H u s b a n d ’s p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s n u mb e r

t w e n t y- s e v e n , t w e n t y11 eight, and twenty -nine given that there wa s no eviden ce to suppo rt them . T here w as 12 no t es tim ony

tha t W if e ap pr opr ia te d or re -g if

te d the car, tha t H usband did not c onse nt 13 to r em ova l of

the c ar , or

tha t he had ne ve r re ce ive d com pe nsa tio n for it. A s such , the 14 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e ff

ec tiv e co nc lusio n th at H usba nd f ai le d to m ee t hi s bu rd enof 15 cl ai m ing a nd p ro vin g th at he ha d se pa ra te a nd c om m uni ty pr ope rty int er es ts i n th e 16 19 55 Ch ev ro le t s up po rte d i ts reject io n o f Hus ba nd ’s p ro po se d fi nd in gs . Se e R uss el l 17 v. R uss el l , 1990 -N MC A -0 80, ¶ 17, 111 N

. M. 23, 801 P. 2d 93 ( “ A tr ia l c ourt i s on ly 18 re qui re d to m ak e fi ndi ngs of suc h ultim at e fa ct s a s are ne ce ssary to de te rm ine the28

1 is s u e s . ” )

. W e h o l d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt d i d n o t e rr b y e n t e r i n g n o f ind ing s or 2 conclusio ns regarding the 195 5 Chevrolet in its order. 3 The T exas Proper ty 4 { 33} H usba

nd m ak es a

m ark ed ly sim il ar arg um en t wi th res pe ctto th e Tex as pro pe rt y 5 w hic h he an dW i f

e c o - s i g n e df

o r a n da c q u i r e ddu r i n g t h e m a rr i a g e . H u s b an d 6 acknowledges that the district court m ade the following f indin g regarding the Texas 7 p r o p e rt y: 8 24. The par

ties co-signed a purchase for [W ife] ’ s daught er . . . . They 9 w er e na m ed on the de ed

a nd m or tg ag e. T he m one y f or the 10 purchase cam e fr om [W ife’ s daught er] . W

hen th e y we re no longer 1 1 co -s i g n er s , t h e p ar t i es qu i t cl ai m e d t h e p ro p er t y t o [Wi fe ’s 1 2 d au g h t e r ]. Th e p a rt i e s h a dn o r e a l i n t e r e s ti n t h e p r o p e rt y. 13 Bu t H usband c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt “ fa il[ ed ] to d et erm in e the c om m uni ty 14 int er es t i n th e T ex as [ p] ro pe rty , ” w hic h we un de rs tand t o be ac ha lle nge to the 15 suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to supp ort the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f in di ng . W e re vie w f

or 16 subs tanti al e vid en ce to de te rm ine w he the r the re is “ suc h r el ev an t e viden ce tha t a 17 reasonable m ind w ould find a dequate to sup port a conclusion .” State ex rel. King v. 18 B & B Inv. Grp. , I

nc. , 2014 -N MS C- 024, ¶ 12, 329 P. 3d 658 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks 19 an d c ita tio n om itt ed ). “ [W ] e re vie w the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost fav or ab le to 20 supp ort the tr ia l cour

t’ s fin din gs, re sol vin g a ll co nf lic ts and i ndul gin g a ll pe rm iss ibl e 21 inference s in favor of the decision below.” Jones , 200 5- N MC A -1 24, ¶ 8.29

1 { 34} W ife testified that she and Husband co-signed a note in order for her daughter 2 to p ur chas e th e Texa s pr ope rty a nd tha t W if

e’ s da ught er pa id the dow n paym en t. 3 Wif e a n dHu s b an dev en tu a l l y d ee d ed t h e h o u s e t o Wif e’s d au g h t eraf

t erWif e’s 4 d au g h t e r

h a db e e n wo rk i n g f

o r a w h i l e a n d“ f

e l tl i k e s h e . . . c o u l dh a n d l e i t[ b y] 5 he rs el f[

. ] ” H usband t es tif ie d th at he did not kno w the sour ce of the funds use d f or the 6 down paym ent for th e Texas p roperty . T his, alone, is substantial evidence to su pport 7 t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’s f

i n d i n g t h a tt h e p a rt i e s h a d n o r e a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e Te x a s p r o p e rt y, 8 thu s m ak ing it unne ce ssary fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt t o di str ibu te a nythi ng r el at ed the re to. 9 W i f e ’ s I n c o me 10 { 35} H usband arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt er

re d by fa ili ng to addr es s and d istri but e 11 W if e’ s $2 83, 000 of

e ar nin gs d ur ing th e m ar

ri ag e. I n su

ppor t of thi s arg um en t, 12 H usband c ite s to thi s C ourt’ s de ci sio n in Irwi n v . I rw in in whi ch we explained that 13 “ unde r N ewMe xic o c o m m un i ty p r o p er ty law [, ] e ac h sp ouse ha s aone -h al f ow ne rs hip 14 in te res t i n a ll co m

m un it y in co m e o r co m

m un it y as se ts acq ui red du rin g t he m arri ag e.” 15 1996 -N MC A -0 07, ¶

13, 121 N

. M. 266 , 910 P

. 2d 3 42. Bu t Ir wi n does n ot s tand f or 16 the pr opos iti on tha t any m one y earn ed dur ing the m ar ri ag e w as c om

m uni ty pr ope rty 17 tha t ne ed ed to be div ide d be tw ee n the pa rt ie s at the tim e of div or ce as Hu sband 18 co nt en ds

. Irwi n , in fa ct , appl ie d th e lim iti ng p ri nc ipl e to the ge ne ra l r ule r eg ardi ng 19 inc om e earn ed

dur ing m ar

ri ag e tha t “ onc e co m

m uni ty

. . . e ar nin gs are e xpe nde d,30

1 ra the r than be ing c onve rt ed int o an a sse t, the re is no c om m uni ty a sse t t o be share d or 2 m an ag ed , a nd the spo use m ak ing the e xpe ndi tur e ha s no duty to re im bur se the 3 com m unityabsent som e s p ec i al circ um stance.” Id

. Th i s Co u rt re

je ct ed t h e w i fe ’s 4 ar gum en t i n Irwi n tha t sh e w as e nti tle d to a n auto m at ic one -h al f int er es t i n th e 5 husb an d’ s i nc om e e a rne d dur i ng t he i r s e par a t i onp e r i od

w he n t he h us band

h ad 6 al read y ex pe nd edall of t he fun ds

. Id

. ¶ 14. 7 { 36} H er e, H usband pr es en te d no e vid en ce r eg ar din g th e sta tus of W if e’ s $2 83, 000 8 in e ar nin gs, i. e. , w ha t port ion , if an y , ha d not bee n expe nde d or conv er te d to a sse ts 9 and would thu s be availab l e fo r distribu tion. His theory —that W ife “ converted 10 co m m uni ty a sse ts to h er

ow n us e an d th e co m

m uni ty is en tit le d to r ei m

bur se m en t f

or 11 the va lue of t ho se a sse ts” —w as not sup porte d by

sub stanti al e vid en ce , or a ny 12 evidence for that m atter. W e thus hol d that the dist rict court properly rej ected 13 H usband’ s r eque st and d id n ot e rr by not dis tr ibu tin g W if

e’ s in co m e earn ed

dur ing 14 the m arria ge. 15 CON CLU SION 16 { 37} W e re ve rs e the di st ric t co urt’ s j udgm en t w ithr es pe ct to the S SP A s and the 1 7 Fr an ci s Ho m e a n dre m an dfo r f u rt h erp ro ce ed i n g s co n s i s t en t wi t h t h i s o p i n i o n . We 1 8 a f f i rm th e d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’s d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a l l o t h e r p r o p e rt y.31

1 { 38} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

2

____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ___ 3 J. M ILES HA NISE E, Judge 4 WE CO NCUR:

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 6 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, C hi ef Ju dg e

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 8 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e