In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

the trial court erroneously classified property as marital when in fact it was non-marital, the question becomes what relief, if any, this court ought to grant. "The erroneous characterization of property requires reversal of the order dividing marital property if the error materially impacts the overall distribution of the marital property." Halupa v. Halupa, 943 S.W.2d 272, 278 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). Here, by our calculation, the difference in the calculation is roughly five thousand dollars. The trial court awarded to each party a percentage of the property based on their respective contributions. The trial court was free to conclude that Wife was entitled to a share of the value of the home due to her significant contributions. Moritz v. Moritz, 844 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Mo.App. W.D.1992)(<HOLDING>). Because the property was not transmuted, it
Holding statements: (A) holding that a nonowning spouse is entitled to some benefit when marital funds are used to improve nonmarital property (B) holding that a trial court may find that a nonowning spouse is entitled to some benefit by reason of marital funds having been used to pay off debts on the owning spouses nonmarital property (C) holding that home purchased with separate funds and titled in one spouses name was transmuted into marital property because home was used as marital residence and the other spouse contributed to payments and repairs on home (D) holding that clear language in one portion of a later may cause ambiguity in another portion to dissipate (E) holding that one spouse may be entitled to a portion of the equity in home purchased with nonmarital funds
(E)

Respondents reversed their position at oral argument) that once subsection four applies, subsection one no longer governs. The parties do dispute the meaning of the word "claimant" in subsection four. Under the plurality's view, as Chief Justice Eismann points out in the Gillihan II dissent, the word "claimant" in subsection four must be synonymous with the idea of "prevailing party." This is because, in order for the word "claimant" in subsection four to refer to either the defendant or plaintiff, it must also signify that such a defendant or plaintiff has prevailed in the personal injury action, since losing parties do not recover attorney fees under Idaho law. See Gillihan II at 271, 92 P.3d at 521 (Eismann, J., concurring in disse 53 Idaho 200, 201, 23 P.2d 739, 740 (1933) (<HOLDING>); In re Segregation of School Dist. No. 58 from
Holding statements: (A) holding elimination of provisions prior to passage of bill requiring a certificate of convenience and necessity indicates legislature intentionally omitted such provisions (B) holding that statutory notice provisions for notice of default and opportunity to cure were waived by provisions of note as to one obligor though provisions applied to coobligor who used property as residence (C) holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa (D) holding predecessor statute unconstitutional specifically because of vicariousliability provisions elimination of intent requirement (E) holding that such provisions are valid
(A)

deadlines and then apply that concept using conventional computer technology and the Internet, they fail to meet section 101's subject matter eligibility requirements. "While running a particular process on a computer undeniably improves efficiency and accuracy, cloaking an otherwise abstract idea in the guise of a computer-implemented claim is insufficient to bring it within section 101." My Space, Inc. v. Graphon Corp., 672 F.3d 1250, 1267 (Fed. Cir.2012) (Mayer, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted); see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir.2012) (concluding that claims directed to a computerized method of managing a stable value protected life insurance policy fell outside section 101); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed.Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>); Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC,
Holding statements: (A) holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not know the residence for which they obtained a warrant actually contained multiple units (B) holding that section 1823e applies only to assets and does not apply to claims regarding letters of credit because letters of credit are liabilities rather than assets (C) holding that a credit issuing bank did not breach a credit agreement when it unilaterally modified the terms (D) holding that claims drawn to a method of applying for credit did not satisfy section 101 notwithstanding the fact that they contained a limitation requiring the invention to be computer aided (E) recognizing statutory credit
(D)