Opinion ID: 2204996
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The trial court considered James's separate property contributions.

Text: James contends that the trial court's property division fails to account for the separate property he contributed to the marriage. James makes two arguments. The first pertains to a farm he owned in Minnesota at the time the parties married. James argues that the court should have considered whether the substantial appreciation of the farm between 1987 and 1991 was active or passive. Because he believes it was passive, he argues that he should be credited with the appreciation as his separate property. Second, James faults the court for not considering $150,000 of pre-marital equity he had in condominiums. James's arguments are not supported by the evidence or Alaska law. The trial court expressly considered James's Minnesota farm in its order. The evidence established that the farm was exchanged for an apartment building, and the parties later exchanged the equity in the apartment building for KCP. James conceded at trial that KCP was marital property. The court did not fail to account for James's pre-marital ownership interest in the Minnesota farm; the court recognized that this equity was contributed toward the purchase of an asset that was conceded to be marital. Nor did the court overlook James's pre-marital equity in the condominiums. Leaving aside the question of whether the condominium equity was transmuted into marital property over the course of the parties' marriage, the trial court acknowledged that James's separate property contributions were noteworthy but concluded that his pre-marital contributions of equity comprised a relatively small component in the amassment of wealth that has occurred during the course of this 20-year marriage. We have held that contributions of separate property may be relevant to equitable division [but] we have not held that failure to make an adjustment for such contributions constitutes an abuse of discretion. [43] James may disagree with the weight accorded to these contributions, but that alone does not support a conclusion that the trial court failed to consider these contributions or otherwise abused its discretion. [44]