Court Opinion

ID: 9687472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:29:11.824996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:27.607895
License: Public Domain

MINGE, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in sections II, III, and IV of the decision and respectfully dissent from the result in section I.
In reviewing the record and the findings of the district court, I conclude that it used the proper standard for determining what constituted active management of nonmari-tal investment assets and properly applied that standard.
With three relatively isolated and minor exceptions, respondent did not play an active or practical role in the management of his nonmarital retirement funds. Respondent’s “active” involvement consists of three decisions: (1) Investing a modest amount in a business in which his son was involved. This was ultimately a loss; it contributed nothing to the growth of the nonmarital asset and even worse it now contributes to all appreciation as being classified as marital property. (2) Changing his investment advisor. This was done once upon the recommendation of respondent’s accountants. This was not active management. It was simply an attempt to save advisory service fees and obtain better services. Respondent subsequently reversed that decision. (3) Rolling funds from certain widely-held mutual funds to others largely within the same family of funds. This was done as any wage earner with a 401 (k) account or other flexible retirement fund might adjust a retirement portfolio mix to maintain balance. It was not often or dramatic. Respondent was working full-time. The record is clear that respondent did not engage in research, take time from his medical practice, take time from his family for this activity, or engage an active, hands-on manager. If this constitutes active management, the bar is very high.
In these circumstances, I would not overrule the district court, but rather defer to its decision that respondent’s management did not cause the appreciation of a nonmarital retirement fund becomes marital property.