Opinion ID: 2572638
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Edward Jones stock account

Text: Christina next argues that the trial court erred in characterizing the Edward Jones stock account as separate property. Prior to his marriage, Michael opened this account with stock that his father had purchased for him from Michael's personal injury settlement award. Christina asserts that Michael deposited marital earnings into the Edward Jones account. She concludes that Michael's intention to keep the Edward Jones account as separate property is irrelevant because by contributing marital funds to the account he made the account marital property. Michael counters that he did not deposit marital earnings into the Edward Jones account. He also argues that he never intended to transmute the account into a marital asset. The trial court apparently determined that the Edward Jones account was separate property because it did not mention the Edward Jones account in the divorce decree and did not include it in the chart of marital assets. The court's reasoning as to the characterization of the Edward Jones account appears to be the same as that used for the bank accountsthat Michael did not intend to transmute the asset into marital property. A review of the record suggests that the evidence supports this finding by the superior court. Michael testified at trial that he only deposited separate funds into his Edward Jones account. He explained that he transferred funds from the settlement into his First National business account and then into the Edward Jones account. He testified: There's a clear path. There is some indication in the trial court's divorce decree that the court accepted Michael's testimony; the court noted generally that Michael did not commingle funds and [t]o the extent separate money was placed in joint accounts the evidence was strong that it was only temporary and not to make it into joint property. Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in characterizing the Edward Jones account as Michael's separate property, we affirm this determination.