Opinion ID: 2516485
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Issue of Invasion of Separate Property Should Be Determined on Remand.

Text: An equal division of the marital property is presumed to be equitable. [17] However, if the trial court concludes that equitable distribution is not possible using the marital property alone, then it must determine whether it is necessary to invade separate property to balance the equities. [18] The trial court said that a balancing of the equities coupled with evidence of [William's] intent requires the inclusion of [William's] inheritance (including the Escrow account) in the marital estate. This analysis runs together the doctrines of transmutation of separate property into marital property and invasion of separate property. Transmutation considers whether there was an intent to include the inheritance in the marital estate. Transmutation is not based on equities, but on the intent of the owner of the separate property, as demonstrated through his words and actions. [19] As explained above, William did not intend to include his inheritance in the marital property. But invasion of separate property considers whether the balancing of the equities between the parties requires invasion. [20] It is impossible on this record to determine whether the trial court would have invaded William's inheritance if it had correctly found that the inheritance was separate property. A remand is therefore necessary so that the court can determine whether on a balance of the equities between the parties invasion of William's separate property is required and, if so, the extent to which invasion is required. In making these determinations we have stated generally that the factors governing the division of marital property identified in Merrill v. Merrill apply. [21] In deciding whether separate property should be invaded, we have stated that courts should particularly consider factors such as the duration of the marriage, the conduct of the parties during the marriage, the manner of acquisition of the property, its value at the time of acquisition and at the time of the property division, and any other factors bearing on whether the equities dictate that the other spouse is entitled to share in that property. [22] Our case law also contains indications of at least two things that courts should not do in making an invasion decision. First, in Brown we indicated that it was error for the trial court to begin with the presumption that an equal division of marital property and of separate property is the most equitable solution. [23] Second, we have warned against an assumption that an invasion of separate property is justified merely because the spouse who does not own separate property has worked and thus contributed to the marital estate. [24] In this case Susan features as reasons for invasion of William's separate property her poor health, inability to work full time, lack of substantial marital property or separate property owned by her, and her claim that during the course of the marriage the availability of William's inheritance caused the parties to make decisions involving their marital assets and their financial future which had a direct bearing on the relatively low value of their marital estate. We consider that all of these factors are appropriate for consideration by the trial court in deciding whether the balancing of the equities between the parties requires invasion of William's separate property and, if so, the extent to which invasion is required.