Court Opinion

ID: 9885020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:27:57.213405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:43.290020
License: Public Domain

WOZNIAK, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the decision to remand, but dissent as to the extent of that remand.
The trial court correctly noted that the formula set forth in Schmitz v. Schmitz, 309 N.W.2d 748 (Minn.1981), should be applied in determining the marital and non-marital interests in the homestead. However, the trial court did not follow through and apply the Schmitz formula to the facts. The trial court recognized that it had no evidence on two essential facts: the value of the condominium at the time of the marriage and appellant’s equity in the condominium at the time of the marriage. Instead of obtaining more evidence on these necessary facts, the trial court used another method to compute appellant’s non-marital share. That was an abuse of discretion.
Property acquired before a marriage is “nonmarital property.” Minn.Stat. § 518.-54, subd. 5 (1984). Absent a finding of unfair hardship, a court is without authority to divide any property other than “marital property.” Minn.Stat. § 518.58 (1984); Cummings v. Cummings, 376 N.W.2d 726, 730 (Minn.Ct.App.1985).
As applied to these facts, the only portion of the condominium which is marital property is the sum of the appreciation in value of the condominium after the date of marriage and the increase in owner’s equity (as a result of payments on the mortgage principal) after the date of marriage. Thus, in order to correctly divide the condominium between marital and nonmarital property, the trial court was required to determine the value of the condominium at the time of marriage and appellant’s equity in the condominium (downpayment plus payments on the mortgage principal plus any appreciation) at the time of marriage.
The majority and dissent recite that appellant had the burden of proving the non-marital character of any appreciation or principal payments, citing Minn.Stat. § 518.54, subd. 5 (1984). However, the presumption of marital property contained in subd. 5 explicitly applies only to property acquired subsequent to the marriage. Because the condominium was acquired before the marriage, the presumption has no effect here and certainly cannot operate to place a burden of proof on appellant. VandeLoo v. VandeLoo, 346 N.W.2d 173 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), cited by the dissent, has no bearing on this point because the property at issue in that case was acquired subsequent to the marriage. Furthermore, as stated above, a court has no power to divide nonmarital property absent “unfair hardship,” and this lack of authority cannot be conveniently sidestepped by asserting that appellant had the burden of proof.
Thus, upon remand, the parties should also be permitted to introduce evidence concerning the value of the condominium on the date of marriage and appellant’s equity in the condominium on the date of marriage.