Opinion ID: 871547
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Aaron's Testimony

Text: Aaron, a 56-year old attorney, testified that sometime in 2001, his law practice began to decline and he suffered from health issues. Aaron was aware that in 2002, Bonnie inherited money, but he indicated that Bonnie did not express to him verbally or in writing that she intended that the money be kept her sole property, that the money was not to be used for marital purposes, or that the money was not to be managed or touched during the marriage. Aaron then testified about how he believed the money in the parties' accounts should be divided in light of his characterization of each asset. With regard to Bonnie's inherited money accounts, Aaron testified that Bonnie would get her basis back, but the appreciation, had there been any, would be split fifty-fifty. Aaron also testified about withdrawals that Bonnie made from her inheritance-funded accounts during the divorce proceedings, which Aaron claimed were in contemplation of divorce. According to Aaron, these withdrawals roughly amounted to $400,000. Aaron testified that Bonnie should be credited with having received [$]400,000. When Aaron attempted to point to his medical condition as a basis for equalization payments, Bonnie's counsel objected, stating, If he was going to put his condition in evidence, [she] should have been permitted to get his medical records. The family court sustained the objection. At the court's direction, the parties submitted their closing arguments in writing. The parties' closing arguments centered around the following main issues: (1) whether Bonnie's gift and inheritances were Marital Separate Property or Marital Partnership Property; [4] (2) whether the Marital Partnership Property should be awarded one-half to each spouse; (3) whether there were any valid and relevant circumstances (VARCs) for equitable deviation; and (4) whether Aaron's pretrial motions regarding Bonnie's alleged violation of the pretrial order against waste should be granted. In his closing arguments, Aaron argued that: (1) the marital estate was entirely comprised of Marital Partnership Property; and (2) Bonnie was fiscally irresponsible during the divorce and improperly made withdrawals in contemplation of divorce. With regard to the division of the marital estate, Aaron specifically argued that Bonnie's inheritance-funded accounts were Marital Partnership Property, not Marital Separate Property, because they were not expressly classified as Bonnie's separate property or maintained by [themselves] as required under Hussey. Additionally, Aaron argued that Bonnie exhibited fiscal irresponsibility and violated the pretrial order when she made sizable withdrawals from her inheritance-funded accounts during the divorce proceedings. Accordingly, Aaron contended that Bonnie should be equitably charged with having received the dollar value of the reduction. In her closing arguments, Bonnie maintained that: (1) her inheritance-funded accounts were Marital Separate Property under Hussey ; (2) the Marital Partnership Property should be awarded one-half to each spouse pursuant to the Partnership Model; (3) equitable deviation from the Partnership Model was not warranted because Aaron is a licensed attorney with marketable skills; and (4) the family court should deny Aaron's motions because Bonnie's expenditures were justified by the high cost of litigation and her necessary travel expenses.