Opinion ID: 897593
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pontiac Automobile

Text: [¶4] Steven argues the trial court erred in awarding a 2001 Pontiac Montana van to Donna. In his appellate brief he states: The Pontiac should have been considered a marital asset. Even if [Steven] was not to get a credit for the pay-off he made of the loan that was against Donna's previous car, at a minimum the Pontiac should have been considered marital property and its value divided equally between the parties. The prenuptial agreement states, property titled in either person's individual name, whether acquired before or after marriage, will remain the property of the person in whose name it is so entitled and will not be considered marital property for the purposes of a divorce. Under the agreement, Donna is listed as owning a 1996 Pontiac Grand Prix with a value of $9,200. Donna acquired the Pontiac Montana van by trading in the Grand Prix, and it is apparently titled in her name. Although the parties agree that before the marriage Steven paid off some debt on the Grand Prix, there is nothing in the prenuptial agreement that requires reimbursement of Steven for paying that debt. Nor does the agreement prohibit the court from awarding the 2001 Pontiac Montana van to Donna as the replacement vehicle for the Pontiac Grand Prix, which was listed as her property. In awarding this automobile to Donna, the court stated, [t]here is no dispute about disposition of the vehicles, so Donna keeps the Pontiac Montana . . . and Rhodes Electric keeps the Dodge pickup. We conclude the court's disposition of this particular asset did not constitute a misapplication of the parties' prenuptial agreement.