The trial court found that wife presented no evidence of donative intent and that, upon reviewing the evidence, the record did not prove husband intended to make a gift to wife of the property. While husband nullified the parties' pre-nuptial agreement, against the advice of counsel, and with the recitation that it was done in consideration for the parties' love for each other, the record reflects that husband sought to obtain peace from wife's badgering. Husband lost weight. Based upon our review of the evidence, we cannot say that the trial court erred in determining that husband's revocation of the pre-nuptial agreement and titling the marital residence in both names did not indicate a donative intent on his part and that wife failed to carry her burden to prove a gift. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's classification of these assets.
Wife contends that the trial court erred by failing to equally divide the parties' property.
As discussed above, the court classified the stocks and marital residence as husband's separate property. Only minor additional assets remained for distribution. 2 Va. App. The parties were married for approximately two years. Husband had no debts prior to the marriage.