Opinion ID: 1370822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the character of other property acquired during the marriage

Text: From 1964 through 1969, Raymond Speer received cash gifts from his parents which were deposited in the parties' joint checking account together with community income. The district court found that the cash gifts amounted to approximately $24,000. Appellant uses the figure $22,150. Funds from the joint account were used to pay for the parties' living expenses and for the purchase of certain securities and an interest in an airport hangar. The disputed securities are 3,000 shares of stock in Westec, Inc., five shares of common stock in the Valley Commercial Bank, ten shares of common stock of Addressograph, Inc., 1,985.968 shares of Investors Variable Payment Fund, 2,934.002 shares in Keystone Custodian Funds, two ownership certificates in Investors Syndicate of America, 100 shares of stock in Photon, Inc., and 100 shares of Diebold Tech Venture Corporation. The district court found that all of these securities and the interest in the airport hangar were community property. Some of these disputed shares, including all of the Valley Commercial Bank stock and some of the Investors and Keystone shares were acquired prior to the receipt of the separate property cash gifts. No evidence was presented to establish that these shares were acquired with separate funds and as to them, the general presumption that all property acquired during the marriage is community property [22] applies. The district court relied on the doctrine that when community and separate funds are so commingled that tracing is impossible, all assets acquired with the commingled funds are community property. This is merely an application of the general presumption that all property acquired during marriage is community property. [23] The presumption places the burden of persuasion on the party asserting the separate character of the assets. [24] That party must prove that the property is separate with reasonable certainty and particularity. [25] When direct tracing of which funds purchased which assets is impossible, this Court has allowed the party asserting the separate character of assets to employ indirect evidence in the form of accounting. [26] In the case before us, the district court stated: [T]he Court is unable to find that there were no community funds available with which to make such acquisitions as at the respective dates when the investments were made. We feel that a requirement of showing that community funds were exhausted at the date of purchase of each disputed asset, imposes too heavy a burden of record keeping on the average spouse. [27]