Spreadsheet: 08ee27a4-6a95-4f29-ac57-896653c7632c
Sheet: Sheet1

Case | Cite | Year | Court | Property | Lower Decision | Final Decision | Comments
Crossland v. Crossland | 725 S.E.2d 509 | 2012 | [NAME]. | Money | Transmuted | Affirmed | The evidence in the record supports the family court's finding that the annuity fund was marital property. Shortly after marrying Wife, [NAME] added Wife's name to the various accounts that made up what he referred to as his " savings." Husband transferred the funds from these accounts into the annuity fund in his name only after the parties separated for the final time. Husband testified he added Wife's name to the accounts after they married so she would have access to his savings in case anything happened to him. In addition, Wife testified she contributed what little income she had to the accounts and lived frugally pursuant to Husband's directives in order to preserve the funds in the accounts. Accordingly, the family court's finding on the issue of transmutation of the annuity fund was proper.
Sanders v. Sanders | 722 S.E.2d 15 | 2011 | [NAME]. | Stock | Transmuted | Affirmed | Based on this evidence, the family court found " Wife's AG Edwards [396 [NAME] 417] account was commingled with marital funds to the extent the inherited and gifted funds can no longer be traced and identified." We agree with the family court that Husband proved assets from the inheritance were transmuted into marital property. Husband demonstrated Wife commingled the inheritance funds with funds from the parties' marital account and used funds from the account to support the marriage.
[NAME] | 721 S.E.2d 7 | 2011 | [NAME]. | Real Estate | Separate Property | Affirmed | The evidence in the record supports the family court's finding that the [NAME] property was nonmarital. The parties never used the Antioch property as a marital home, never placed the property in Wife's name, and Husband never made any substantial improvements to the property during the marriage. In addition, Husband, as the sole mortgagee, did not mortgage the [NAME] property for the purpose of its acquisition, but mortgaged it to pay for improvements on the commercial property. While the parties paid the mortgage payments out of a joint bank account, Wife was never an obligor. Husband mortgaged the Antioch property to support the parties' marriage, and the record contains no other evidence of intent to treat the property as marital property.
Pittman v. Pittman | 717 S.E.2d 88 | 2011 | [NAME]. | Business | Transmuted | Affirmed | We agree with Wife the record supports the family court's finding that Husband intended to treat Pittman Professional Land Surveying as a marital asset. Wife was listed as secretary for the corporation. After the parties married in 2000, Wife, with Husband's consent, reduced the hours she worked at her nursing job to work full-time in the business and thus contributed less to her 401K and retirement accounts. Most significantly, Husband and Wife agreed that the business would pay Wife a higher salary for her services than what her services warranted with the expectation that this business decision would benefit both parties during their retirement together. Under these circumstances, we decline to disturb the finding that Pittman Professional Land Surveying had been transmuted. (" [T]he family court's factual findings will be affirmed unless ‘ appellant satisfies this court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the [family] court.’ " ).
Nestberg v. Nestberg | 716 S.E.2d 310 | 2011 | [NAME]. | Real Estate | Transmuted | Affirmed | The facts of this case demonstrate that [NAME] and [NAME] regarded the property as common property of the marriage. In addition to the fact that they lived in the home for the duration of their marriage, [NAME]'s primary role in paying the mortgages for five years after [NAME] lost his job tips the scale in favor of transmutation. The joint checking account contained marital funds that were used to build equity in the property by paying the mortgages. [NAME] agreed he relied on [NAME]'s income and credit cards to develop the land he transferred to [NAME] and that, "to a degree," [NAME] " had been carrying the majority of the income for five years."
Smallwood v. Smallwood | 709 S.E.2d 543 | 2011 | [NAME]. | Real Estate | Transmuted | Reversed | In 1992, prior to the parties' marriage, Husband purchased three rental properties.  The record contains no evidence Husband ever placed the rental properties in Wife's name or transferred the properties to Wife as a gift.  Wife failed to present any evidence Husband intended to treat that property, or any of the other rental properties, as marital. While we recognize Wife's contributions of time and labor during the parties first five years of marriage, they are insufficient to prove transmutation.  Additionally, the record included no evidence Husband commingled the rental properties with marital property, used the rental properties exclusively for marital purposes, or used marital funds to build equity in the rental properties.
Myers v. Myers | 705 S.E.2d 86 | 2011 | [NAME]. | Money | Transmuted | Reversed | Even if the inheritance was deposited into the parties' joint account, this does not automatically render the inherited funds or the F-150 truck to be marital property. [NAME] v. [NAME] (" An unearned asset that is derived directly from nonmarital property also remains separate unless transmuted, [391 S.C. 320] as does property acquired in exchange for nonmarital property." ). Wife admitted Husband told her that he purchased the truck with his inheritance. However, Wife stated that she included the truck on her financial declaration because she did not know whether Husband bought it with his inheritance " for sure." Wife's testimony is inadequate in light of Husband's testimony that he purchased the truck with nonmarital funds. Because Husband was the only party who ever withdrew or deposited funds into this account, and the transaction for the truck occurred within twenty-four hours of the inheritance funds being placed in the account, Wife failed to establish that these funds were so commingled as to be " untraceable."
[NAME] | 697 S.E.2d 702 | 2010 | [NAME]. | Real Estate | Transmuted | Reversed | Wife failed to carry her burden of producing objective evidence showing that Husband regarded the home as the common property of the marriage, which is essential for a transmutation claim. This case is similar to [NAME] v. [NAME]. In [NAME], the parties had lived in the marital home for the duration of their seventeen-year marriage, and wife had worked on improvements to the marital home during that time.  Here, similar to the wife in Murray, Wife lived in and worked on improvements to the marital home during her nineteen-year marriage to Husband. However, the record does not reflect that marital funds paid for the materials used to improve the home. Further, there is nothing in the record to show the value of Wife's contributions or how those contributions affected the value of the home.  Court remanded the case to the family court to determine any appreciation of the marital home's value resulting from Wife's contributions and to reapportion the marital estate.
Smith v. Smith | 687 S.E.2d 720 | 2009 | [NAME]. | Money | Separate Property | Affirmed | Because all marital funds spent on the Florida residence were reimbursed, [NAME]'s savings account qualified as nonmarital property. From [NAME]'s savings account, the tobacco bonds and Sumter residence were purchased. As a result, these assets were also nonmarital property and not subject to equitable division, unless they became transmuted into marital property.  At trial, no testimony was introduced evidencing an intent for these assets to become marital property.
[NAME] | 682 S.E.2d 37 | 2009 | [NAME]. | Business | Transmuted | Affirmed | Profits from the produce stand along with rental income from the cellular tower provided Husband and Wife their main sources of income. Additionally, the parties intended to treat the produce stand as property of the marriage and used the income from the produce stand to provide for their family. In turn, the parties used marital funds to build equity in the produce stand.  Wife worked seven days a week during the produce stand's thirty-two week selling season. Her responsibilities included running the cash register, purchasing inventory, and unloading produce. Wife testified she ran the daily operations of the produce stand.  Wife did not receive any wages for her work at the produce stand.
[NAME] v. Burr | 673 S.E.2d 818 | 2009 | [NAME]. | Real Estate | Separate Property | Affirmed | Burr acquired the house more than one year before the parties married and had it titled in his own name and the names of several members of his extended family. Although [NAME] was listed on numerous insurance policies on the house and paid a share of the premiums, we concur in the family court's finding that this participation was not sufficient to infer that Burr intended to treat the home as marital property; rather, it reflected Burr's concern that [NAME] be protected because her personal effects were in the home. Furthermore, contrary to [NAME]'s contention that she was unaware that she was not on the deed until after the parties' separation, the record contains an exhibit indicating otherwise. We further believe that the short duration of the marriage, the lack of evidence that the parties took out any joint loans to improve the property, and fact that [NAME]'s contributions to the equity in the property were not significant support a finding that the home had not been transmuted.
[NAME] | 660 S.E.2d 278 | 2008 | SC | Real Estate | Separate Property | Affirmed | Although the evidence shows Husband acquired the land by gift from Simpson, Sr. during the marriage, the parties, using funds earned during the marriage, built the marital home. Together, they cleared the land where the house was built. The residence was occupied by both the parties from the time it was built in 1995 until this action was commenced in 2004. Clearly, the parties utilized the home and land in support of the marriage. See [NAME], 289 S.C. 377, 380, 346 S.E.2d 326, 328 (Ct.App.1986)
LaFrance v. LaFrance | 636 S.E.2d 3 | 2008 | [NAME]. | Jewelry | Transmuted | Affirmed | The family court judge instructed that Wife bore the burden of proving the jewelry in existence at the time of filing the marital litigation was owned prior to the marriage. Wife met that burden. Once it was established the jewelry was premarital, Husband bore the burden of proving transmutation in order for the jewelry to be considered marital. Husband met that burden by demonstrating that “the premarital items were mixed with other items of jewelry and modified using marital funds." Wife did not refute Husband's evidence. Therefore, the family court appropriately declared the jewelry marital property.
[NAME] v. [NAME] | 631 S.E.2d 279 | 2006 | [NAME]. | Real Estate | Separate Property | Affirmed | Wife argues the family court erred in failing to find that property obtained in Husband's name prior to the move to South Carolina was transmuted into marital property.   The family court determined that any transmutation must have occurred, if at all, after the 1996 date of the common law marriage. Reviewing the evidence, the court determined that Wife failed to meet her burden of proving transmutation of the Fidelity Investment account and the profits of the Connecticut property. Although money from Husband's separate property was used to purchase items for the farm or to benefit the parties, nothing in the record shows Husband's intent to transmute the property or that the proceeds from the lease became commingled with marital property. Further, mere use of the income from Husband's separate property in support of the marriage does not transmute them into marital property. Accordingly, Wife failed to prove transmutation of Husband's separate property acquired prior the 1996 marriage.
[NAME] | 606 S.E.2d 489 | 2004 | [NAME]. | Car | Separate Property | Affirmed | Despite Wife's argument that the car was at times used during the marriage by both parties, the evidence indicates the car was more of a pleasure vehicle and not necessary for transportation for the parties. Although the Corvette was maintained and insured during the marriage from the parties' joint account, to which both parties contributed, nothing indicates the parties' intentions that the Corvette change from nonmarital to marital property. Because this car was not used for the benefit of the marriage, we find the car was not transmuted.
Greene v. Greene | 569 S.E.2nd 393 | 2002 | [NAME]. | Real Estate | Separate Property | Affirmed | However, the record clearly indicates Husband deliberately kept his premarital property separate and distinct from their marital property. Husband maintained a joint account with Wife and separate accounts funded with his separate property; he used money from his separate accounts to maintain the home and pay the homeowner's insurance premiums. He also subsidized the horse business and farm with money from his separate accounts. In our view, these efforts are evidence of Husband's intent to treat his premarital home and other premarital properties as nonmarital property.
[NAME] v. [NAME] | 557 S.E.2d 639 | 2001 | [NAME]. | Stock | Transmuted | Affirmed | We find that by commingling the inheritance funds with funds from the parties' marital account so as to become untraceable, and generally using funds from the account to support the marriage, any such assets from the inheritance were transmuted into marital property. We therefore find no error.
[NAME] | 545 S.E.2d 531 | 2001 | [NAME]. | Real Estate | Transmuted | Affirmed | The parties treated the Georgetown farm and home in such a manner during the marriage as to evidence their intent that it become their common property. The court properly included the property in the marital estate for purposes of equitable distribution.
Pool v. Pool | 467 S.E.2d 753 | 1996 | [NAME]. | Business Equip | Separate Property | Reversed | As to the identification and valuation of the marital property, the court found the Fitness Connection was owned by the husband before the marriage. The business operated at a leased location and the property consisted primarily of exercise equipment. While the husband used income from the business to support the family during the marriage, there is no additional evidence of intent to treat the business as marital property. However, the husband testified he purchased approximately $10,000 worth of exercise equipment for the business during the marriage which he valued at $3300 as of the date of filing. The parties' joint 1990 tax return shows they reported rental income from the Fitness Connection for leased equipment. We conclude the husband utilized marital funds to purchase $10,000 worth of equipment during the marriage and, he failed to establish the equipment was separate property. Therefore, the equipment purchased during the marriage was marital property even though the business was nonmarital.
[NAME] v. [NAME] | 439 S.E.2d 312 | 1993 | [NAME]. | Real Estate | Separate Property | Affirmed | The parties lived in the marital home for the duration of the marriage. Although this was Mrs. [NAME]'s home for over seventeen years, the mere use of separate property to support the marriage, without some additional evidence of intent to treat it as property of the marriage, is not sufficient to establish transmutation. Mrs. [NAME] contends her contributions of labor and time to the improvement and maintenance of the marital home and rental properties are evidence that the parties considered the properties were marital property. While improvements made by a spouse to nonmarital property may result in the spouse's receiving an equitable interest in the property, contributions of time and labor do not necessarily prove transmutation.
Wannamaker v. Wannamaker | 406 S.E.2d 180 | 1989 | [NAME]. | Stock | Separate Property | Affirmed | The Orangeburg account was kept in the husband's name. Good records were kept as to the deposits and disbursements in this account. We hold that the preponderance of evidence establishes that the funds of the Orangeburg account used to purchase stock were traced to the individual property of the husband.  The argument that if any portion of the husband's separate estate is used in the furtherance of the marriage, the entire account loses its independent status and becomes marital property is without merit.
[NAME] | 378 S.E.2d 251 | 1989 | SC | Furniture | Transmuted | Affirmed | The record reveals that most of the personal property consisted of furniture and utensils used during the marriage. Therefore, the doctrine of transmutation was properly applied. Furthermore, each of the parties was granted possession of most of the items they requested.
Canaday v. Canaday | 374 S.E.2d 502 | 1988 | [NAME]. | Real Estate | Transmuted | Affirmed | In the instant case, not only did the parties use the property in support of their marriage and jointly discharge indebtedness incurred, but also there is evidence the husband considered the property marital property. Throughout the trial, Mr. [NAME] referred to the home as the marital residence and admitted the wife probably retained an equitable interest in the property. We therefore hold under the circumstances of this case this property was transmuted into marital property.  Mr. [NAME] also contends that since the improvements were to the house and not the acreage, only the home could be considered transmuted. We disagree. The mortgage covered the entire 25 acre tract. Both parties were responsible for the mortgage payments. We find the entire 25 acre tract was thus transmuted.
[NAME] | 372 S.E.2d 910 | 1988 | [NAME]. | Real Estate | Separate Property | Affirmed | The wife has failed to show transmutation. At the time of the remodeling, the house was owned by the step-mother; hence any evidence regarding the remodeling efforts cannot be considered as evidence of an intent to transmute the house since it was not the husband's property to transmute. The only evidence of transmutation after the husband acquired title is that the parties lived in the house for nine years. As we have noted, the mere use of nonmarital property to support the marriage, without some additional evidence of intent to treat it as property of the marriage, is not sufficient to establish transmutation.
[NAME] v. [NAME] | 372 S.E.2d 107 | 1988 | [NAME]. | Various | Transmuted | Reversed | We hold the family court erred in concluding the "disputed property" was transmuted. The record discloses a clear, consistent intent of Dr. [NAME] to maintain the nonmarital character of all property he acquired before the marriage. In particular, the antenuptial agreement stated plainly that neither party would acquire any interest in the separately titled property of the other by reason of the marriage. Although the antenuptial agreement is not an enforceable contract, it is evidence of Dr. [NAME]'s intent to maintain his previously acquired, nonmarital property as separate property. Unless subsequent acts of the parties during the marriage showed a change of intent, the property could not be transmuted.
[NAME] | 345 S.E.2d 510 | 1986 | [NAME]. | Money | Transmuted | Reversed | The husband impliedly argues if any portion of an inheritance is used in the furtherance of the marriage, the entire sum loses its independent status and becomes marital property. We reject this argument as meritless.