Opinion ID: 2633636
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The related partnerships

Text: We now turn to a discussion of Bill's interests in the related partnerships. The superior court found that the doctrine of active appreciation did not apply to the partnerships for two reasons: (1) because the partnerships had not actively appreciated in value and (2) because neither Bill nor Carey made marital contributions to the property. No evidence of the partnerships' value was presented before the court by either party. The superior court found that while the evidence is not sufficient for the Court to determine if these assets have appreciated, the evidence is quite clear that if there were such appreciation it would be passive, rather than active. In short, rather than requiring that the assets be separately appraised, the superior court relied on Bill's expert's view that any appreciation in value was passive. We have remanded for further findings when an asset's value was not first determined. For example, in Foster v. Foster, we stated that it was error for the superior court not to value the allotment of native land that was the wife's separate property because that valuation should be taken into account when assessing the relative economic positions of the parties. [60] But in Foster, no evidence of the property's value was before the court, and it was in the light of that paucity of information that we determined it was clear error for the superior court to decide that the property value was negligible. [61] In this case, although the superior court did not have evidence of the actual value of either partnership before it, it did have testimony to the effect that if there had been an increase in the value of the partnerships, it quite clear[ly] would have been entirely passive in form. On appeal, Carey now asserts that the evidence of appreciation cannot be reasonably disputed, but every example she offers is an example of passive appreciation rather than active appreciation. [62] As previously noted, Carey had the burden of proof on this issue, yet she failed to offer her own experts at trial or attempt to appraise the separate assets of the partnerships. [63] Furthermore, the second finding made by the superior court, that no marital contributions were made to the partnerships, is sufficient on its own to counter the active appreciation argument. [64] The superior court found that the partnerships were not a result of Bill's plans or ideas and that he did not work on them as part of the business. The partnerships are run instead by Odom Enterprises's managers as part of the company assets. Although it was her burden, Carey did not offer any evidence at trial that Bill managed or ran the partnerships during the marriage. In sum, Carey failed to meet her burden of showing that there had been an increase in value of either Odom Company or the partnership or that any appreciation would have been active. Thus, the superior court did not err in its determination that Odom Company and the partnership were Bill's separate property.