Opinion ID: 2572638
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First use of active appreciation in Martin

Text: This court discussed active appreciation in at least two cases before Martin. In Brooks v. Brooks, [2] we stated that [m]any courts have recognized two types of `causes' for the appreciation of separate propertypassive and active.... [ A]ctive appreciation is the result of some affirmative action taken by one or both spouses which caused the increased value of the separate property. [3] Finding that the appreciation in that case was passive, and noting that [w]e have never held that a non-titled spouse is entitled to share in the passive appreciation of separate property, [4] we held that the non-titled spouse in Brooks was not entitled to share in the appreciation of the subject property. [5] Along the same lines, we held against the non-titled spouse in Miles v. Miles [6] because [t]he superior court found that [the wife's] efforts were de minimis and did not constitute an active interest in [the husband's premarital properties], and her efforts did not contribute to the active appreciation of the properties. [7] And in Lowdermilk v. Lowdermilk , [8] while not using the phrase active appreciation, we held that an increase in the value of the husband's separate business owing to the husband's contributions of time and energy [9] during the marriage was marital property. (Indeed, in Martin we cited Lowdermilk, a 1992 case, to support application of the doctrine of active appreciation. [10] ) Under these circumstances, the suggestion that Christina did not have notice that the doctrine was available to her is simply not tenable.