Opinion ID: 1143506
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Credit for Contribution of Premarital Assets.

Text: Kenneth claims that giving Marla a credit for contribution of premarital assets amounts to giving her a double recovery. He claims that any separate property she brought to the marriage has been commingled, has been treated as joint property and has benefited both spouses. In effect, Mrs. Laing is enjoying the benefits of this [$25,500] twice; once during their twenty year marriage and now through divorce in her receipt of most of the Laing's marital assets. This argument apparently assumes that Marla's $25,500 contribution was something that could be enjoyed only once before it is used up. In reality at least $15,000 was invested in various real properties which presumably appreciated in value over the twenty-year marriage. Kenneth correctly argues that where the parties by their actions during marriage have demonstrated their intent to treat certain separate property as joint holdings, a court will consider the property to be a marital asset. Carlson v. Carlson, 722 P.2d 222, 224 (Alaska 1986). But, treating assets as marital property means only that the property is available for equitable division under AS 09.55.210(6). [6] Wanberg, 664 P.2d at 571. Kenneth himself testified that the proceeds from the sale of Marla's house were eventually used to purchase property here in Alaska. The trial court did not treat the Alaska property as Marla's separate property, it considered all of this property to be available for distribution. This is all that is required by Wanberg. This court has often stated that the criteria listed in Merrill are not exhaustive and the trial court is free to consider additional factors which may be relevant in a particular case. Wanberg, 664 P.2d at 575 n. 22; see also Burcell, 713 P.2d at 805 n. 3; Brooks, 677 P.2d at 1233. A spouse's contribution of substantial separate property to the marriage may be such a relevant factor. In this case, the court did not make a dollar for dollar credit for Marla's contribution, rather it awarded her a partial credit which was taken care of by the uneven property division and the order that Kenneth make loan payments on property awarded to her. Given the equities of the case, this award was not unjust.