Opinion ID: 2587710
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The 2001 Mercedes-Benz

Text: After the couple separated, Kimberly traded in her 2001 Mercedes-Benz for a 2003 Jeep. She received less than fair market value for the Mercedes-Benz, which the parties agree was marital property. The superior court assigned the Mercedes-Benz its Kelley Blue Book value as of the trial date. Patrick argues that this was error, and that the superior court should have assigned the Mercedes-Benz its value as of September 12, 2002, a date near the trade-in date. Property generally should be valued as close to the trial date as possible. [49] Recapture is appropriate if a spouse has dissipated or wasted marital property between separation and trial. [50] Recapture is an equitable doctrine, designed to put the parties in the positions they would have been in had the waste not occurred. [51] Kimberly agrees that recapture of some of the Mercedes-Benz's value to the marital estate was appropriate. Patrick argues that when recapturing the Mercedes-Benz's value, the superior court should have valued the property as of the date of waste. [52] But in this case the Blue Book provides an accurate means of determining the fair market value of dissipated property at the time of trial, when the Mercedes-Benz would have been valued had Kimberly not exchanged it. [53] Using the 2003 valuation leaves Patrick in the same position he would have been in had Kimberly not traded in the Mercedes-Benz. The superior court did not clearly err in valuing the Mercedes-Benz as of the date of trial rather than as of September 12, 2002.