If the appellant is dissatisfied because the family court's division and distribution does not materially differ from the USP in the manner requested at the trial by the appellant, then the family court must specify the factual considerations upon which the denial of the requested difference is based. Hatayama v. Hatayama,9 Haw. If we now had to choose between all family courts adjusting Category 1 NMVs for inflation and all family courts not adjusting Category 1 NMVs for inflation, we would opt for the latter. She contends that these NMVs should have been included within Category 5. We disagree with Wife.
Transmutation requires tracing.
In the Gussins' case, there is no evidence that Husband legally gifted any Category 1 NMVs to Wife or to Husband and Wife. The fact that after the DOM Husband deposited some of his Category 1 NMV into a marital fund which was used to purchase a joint asset is insufficient to prove the occurrence of a legal gift of that NMV to Wife. Wife contends that this deviation was an abuse of discretion. All of these factual considerations ignore the inherent benefits and liabilities of the marital partnership we outlined in Hatayama v. Hatayama,9 Haw. Husband's earnings from his activities during the marriage were marital partnership earnings.