Opinion ID: 2572638
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Are the underlying arguments dependent on new or controverted facts?

Text: Christina did allege a few facts at trial that were relevant to a claim for active appreciation. Christina's trial brief notes that Michael was primarily the breadwinner, and spent a great deal of time working away from home. He devoted much of his marital efforts to the accounting business, while Tina had primary responsibility for the child and the home during the marriage. But she did not meet the first Zeman requirement because she did not submit sufficient evidence to prevail on the theory of active appreciation. Specifically, as discussed below at 1134, Christina failed even to introduce evidence of the value of the accounting business. [14] Because the theory of active appreciation requires a showing that an asset has increased in value, it is dependent here on new facts not introduced at trial.