Opinion ID: 2516650
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Separate property

Text: Will argued below that he purchased the Mountain View lot and the furniture and appliances in the East Hill Road cabin with funds from a $200,000 inheritance he received after his father's death in 1984. The superior court declined to award these items to Will as his separate property. It reasoned that it is almost impossible for this court to track the use of defendant's inheritance and he made little effort to do so during trial. It also noted that [a]ll monies earned or inherited by the couple were comingled.... Finally, it stated that given the nature of the [parties'] relationship, the court finds that it was [Will's] intention to gift a share of the inheritance to [Stacey] as it was expended. Will argues on appeal that it was error to award Stacey an interest in property purchased with funds from his inheritance. Assuming without deciding that the concept of separate property applies to the division of property accumulated during cohabitation, a party arguing that assets were purchased with separate funds has the burden of proving the source of the funds. [24] Because Will admitted at trial that he commingled the proceeds from the Bristol Bay fishing enterprise with his inheritance, and because he offered no evidence at trial tracing the source of the funds he used to purchase the disputed property, we affirm the award to Stacey of an interest in property allegedly purchased with the inheritance.