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

Heading: Failing to credit James for paying over $100,000 of marital debt was error.

Text: James argues that the trial court erred by failing to credit him for $101,808 in marital loans that he paid during the separation period. [45] We agree. A bank statement for June 8 to July 7, 2006 shows that the Partridges owed $101,808 on three debts near the time of their separation: loans for a 2005 Roadtrek motorhome and a 1993 Monaco motorhome, and a line of credit. Each debt is presumptively marital because each was outstanding as of June 30, 2006, the court-declared date of separation. We have held that, [a]bsent any showing that the parties intended a debt to be separate, the trial court must presume that a debt incurred during the marriage is marital and should consider it when dividing the marital estate. [46] James made four payments of $2,705.25 on the motorhome loans in June, July, August, and September 2006. In October 2006 James paid off the loan balances for both motorhomes and the credit line. It does not appear that James received credit in the court's final accounting for paying these marital debts. The court adopted Erlinda's expert's accounting and credited James for paying just $23,454.55 of marital debt during the separation period. Erlinda's expert explicitly classified James's payments on the motorhome loans as his separate property without explanation and omitted his satisfaction of the balance on the line of credit entirely. Because the trial court did not credit James for retiring these marital loans, we remand the court's property division for consideration of this credit. [47]