Opinion ID: 1936968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: marital residence and other property

Text: Marcovitz also argues that the district court erred in awarding the marital residence to Rogers as her separate property. The residence was jointly titled. Pursuant to the postnuptial agreement, [a]ny property ... acquired hereafter in their joint names shall be considered the joint and marital property of the parties. Although Rogers testified that in her opinion, the Commingling clause of the postnuptial agreement would allow her to recover whatever money she put into the residence, the clause itself belies her belief. It states in part that [i]t is the parties' intention that such commingling or pooling of assets not be interpreted to imply any abandonment of the terms and provisions of this Agreement and that the provision contained herein addressing the parties' interests in jointly-held property be applied.  (Emphasis supplied.) The marital residence was the joint property of the parties, and the district court erred in awarding it to Rogers as her separate property. The house was valued at the time of trial at $225,000. We therefore order Rogers to pay Marcovitz one-half of the value of the house ($112,500).