We find no basis to disturb the trial court's treatment of monthly payments received pursuant to this contract for deed. The monthly payments were placed into a joint checking account, and the nonmarital portions of the payments lost their nonmarital character when funds from the checking account were used to pay unidentified, household expenses. But we disagree with the trial court's conclusion that there was no evidence that any contract for deed payments were used to pay for any particular real or personal property. Husband's testimony that the contracts for deed were satisfied and the proceeds were put into the homestead is evidence that the payments to satisfy the contracts were used to pay for particular real property. Documentary evidence is not the only evidence that will meet the requirement for tracing nonmarital property.
Testimony is also sufficient for tracing funds.
Because husband's testimony is evidence that could allow tracing, and the trial court's decision was based on a determination that there was no evidence that would allow tracing, we reverse the nonmarital property distribution and remand to permit the trial court to reconsider husband's testimony regarding the real estate transactions. Husband also argues that he was precluded from strictly tracing the nonmarital property because he left his bank records in the homestead, and although he requested the records, wife destroyed them. He contends that allowing the trial court's order to stand will allow wife to benefit from her active participation in the obstruction of his proof. But husband has not demonstrated that he did anything more than request the records. He has not cited any motion he made to compel wife to produce the records.