Opinion ID: 2587753
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: IRAs

Text: Karl acquired several IRAs during the marriage. As to two of these accounts, the superior court found that as of September 30, 2001 IRA A had a value of $6,981.04 and IRA B had a value of $41,830.91. [31] It found that these IRAs were rolled over on August 13, 1991 and May 23, 2000, respectively, and held them to be marital assets. It found that the asset balance was rolled over during the marriage and found that the constant re-characterization (by rolling over and/or redepositing into different accounts) of the separate funds and income of both parties supported characterizing these assets as marital. Karl contends that he and Mada had separate IRA accounts, although Karl's were rolled over after they married. He claims that during the marriage the parties contributed $3,500 to Karl's IRA and $3,500 to Mada's IRA. Karl asserts that the court erred when it classified these two IRAs as marital, because all funds within these IRAs other than the $3,500 deposits were either premarital or accruals attributable to premarital funds. He argues that the court could not divide this property without finding that the assets were co-mingled or transmuted or that a balancing of the equities requires such a result, [32] yet it made no such findings. Mada points out that Karl testified that IRA A received some contributions during the marriage. Karl stated that these were rollovers from his other premarital IRAs, but Mada showed that between $67,000 and $121,000 of Karl's marital earnings had not been deposited into marital funds or trackable separate funds. Mada argues that the court could infer that the missing funds, not premarital funds, were the source of the deposits made during the marriage. Property that was once separate may be transmuted into marital property if its owner intended to do so. Intent may be demonstrated through words and actions. [33] [P]lacing separate property in joint ownership is rebuttable evidence that the owner intended the property to be marital. [34] We review a finding of transmutation for clear error. [35] As the superior court explained, it concluded that these IRAs became marital property as a result of Karl's rolling over and redepositing funds. Although it did not specifically mention transmutation in reference to these accounts, the court did find that the parties' funds in general were commingled and transmuted into marital property. The court did not discuss specifically how these rollovers and redeposits demonstrated an intent to transmute separate property into a marital asset. There is no evidence any funds deposited in IRA A were marital, other than the $3,500 Karl concedes he deposited during the marriage. There was no evidence of transmutation, and we agree with Karl that it was an abuse of discretion to treat the entire account as marital. We therefore reverse the characterization that this account was entirely marital and remand for determination of the value of the $3,500 and the interest it accrued; this portion of the account is marital property. The rest of IRA A is nonmarital property. We need not remand with regard to Mada's Alaska USA IRA, with a value of $2,287.45. Because Mada contributed $3,500 to this account, the entire IRA is marital property, as the superior court correctly found. Karl argues that IRA B, like his other IRA, is separate [personal] property. There was no evidence, either by testimony or exhibit, that IRA B was premarital property. We therefore agree with Mada that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in treating this account as marital.