Opinion ID: 2821956
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sidney Real Estate

Text: [¶22] Christine argues that the court clearly erred when it found that the Sidney property was wholly nonmarital. She argues that the value of the marital component of the property is equal to the amount by which the mortgage was decreased during the marriage. [¶23] When “a spouse obtains title to real property before the marriage, but mortgage payments are made during the marriage, the property will include both marital and nonmarital components.” Coppola v. Coppola, 2007 ME 147, ¶ 20, 938 A.2d 786 (quotation marks omitted); see also Williams, 645 A.2d at 1120 (reasoning that property is acquired as it is paid for). [¶24] In this case, Randy undoubtedly met his burden of showing that he purchased the Sidney property prior to the marriage. The burden then shifted to Christine to show a marital component, which she contends on appeal is the portion of the property acquired during marriage via mortgage payments. Christine offered only a table, prepared by her, indicating that two debts on the property were reduced during the marriage. The information contained in the table was never admitted as substantive evidence either through testimony or a duly admitted exhibit. Because Christine failed to put forth evidence that would allow the court to find a specific amount of marital interest in an otherwise nonmarital asset, she has failed to meet her burden of proof, and the court did not clearly err in 13 finding that the Sidney property was wholly nonmarital. See Miliano, 2012 ME 100, ¶ 13, 50 A.3d 534 (noting that, when a court is presented with insufficient evidence to meaningfully undertake the analysis required by section 953(1), “the issue should be resolved against the party with the burden of proof” (quotation marks omitted)).