Segregating Separate Property From Community Property
Posted on : August 9, 2016, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Segregating Separate Property From Community Property
In Arizona, an increase in the value of separate property during a marriage can be either separate or community property. Arizona court generally treats it as community property to the extent it is attributable to a spouse’s efforts. Any increase due to the inherent value of the property remains separate property.
In Nace v. Nace 448 P.2d 76 (1968), the Arizona Supreme Court addressed this issue. A husband appealed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the increase of his separate holdings during the marriage were community property.
Facts of the Case
Segregating Separate and Community Property.
Mr. Nace and Mrs. Nace married in 1956. Wife filed for dissolution in 1963. She asked for a property division, alimony and child support. The trial court awarded her the family home, $1,500 a month alimony and $400 a month child support. It also identified $112,000 as her separate property and awarded her $60,000 of the community property.
It then ordered the husband to pay property taxes on the house plus medical expenses for the child in the amount of $500 per year. Wife appealed.
The Court of Appeals changed the award. It gave the wife the family home plus $500,000 as her share of community property. From this, it subtracted the home value–$111,950—leaving $388,050, with interest. From this, husband appealed.
The Arizona Supreme Court reevaluated the property division.
Husband’s Separate Holdings
For decades before the marriage, Mr. Nace managed his family’s chain of motion picture theaters, the “Nace Circuit”. The trial court determined that his properties were worth $470,207 at the time of the marriage. Two years after the marriage, Mr. Nace inherited property valued at $1,135,959.
Husband presented substantial evidence of his financial affairs at trial, including checks and accounts. He called the account relating to his financial enterprises his “regular” account. He called the community property account his “special” account and he deposited his salary into it.
On one occasion though, he deposited $230,000 from his regular account into his special account.
Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
Kevin Park of Arizona Estate Planning Attorneys was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
I retained Hildebrand Law after interview a number of firms in the valley. Working with Michael C. was incredibly easy and informative. My case progressed in such a organized and thought out way to ensure that my needs were met. Michael was incredibly proactive and was able to see far ahead into my case to steer clear of some roadblocks. I would not hesitate to recommend Michael Clancy, and Hildebrand Law in general, to anyone.
I have worked with Hildebrand law for about 8 years. They are always ready to serve, provide guidance and give you a few options. When they provide you options they also take the time to walk you through the pros and cons of each and give you a recommendation of what is best, but will listen to you and support whatever course you choose after making and educated choice. I’d recommend them to my closest friends and feel Chris Hildebrand is now a friend to me.
Despite the unfortunate situation I found myself in, Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law helped me maneuver every step with professionalism, expertise, and even a sensitivity that was an added bonus.Chris and his staff helped me even when I didn't know I needed the help. In other words. . . they made sure we did not leave anything undone. And in the rare instance we needed the expertise of another professional, Chris knew exactly who to recommend.Chris also knew, because of his experience, what to anticipate down the road of litigation. That meant we were better prepared to meet the challenges head on, which lead to a more equitable and fair outcome. I appreciated that Chris did his best to meet my every need in a timely fashion, even if I had a simple question that required only a phone call or e-mail or if we needed to talk face-to-face.I highly recommend Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law, PC.
In Arizona, the court determines the separate or community characteristic of property by its status at the time of the marriage. During a marriage, property keeps its status as separate or community as long as it can continue to be segregated.
Arizona courts presume the property a couple buys during the marriage to be community property. The Supreme Court said that to determine community property, they must first determine what is separate property. It reviewed the trial court’s determination of separate property, saying it would not disturb it absent an abuse of discretion.
Segregating Separately Owned Property From Community Property.
The trial court found that Mr. Nace held separate property in the amount of $470,207 at the time of the marriage. He then inherited $1,135,959 for a total of $1,606,166. The court valued this separate property at $2,703,834 at the time of divorce.
The trial court found that husband’s separate property increased in value during the marriage by over $1 million. It could not determine what portion of the increase to attribute to his business judgment and management. Nor could it determine what part to attribute to the inherent nature of the business or property. Therefore, under Arizona law, it found all the increase to be community property.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It evaluated husband’s salary and found it to be a fair estimation of the value of a skilled manager. It found that he kept the books scrupulously. Other than the $230,000 he transferred to the community account, husband kept all other business money separate. Therefore, the court ruled that everything in the regular account was Mr. Naces’s separate property.
The Court then said that all of the money in the special account was community property. It also treated the $230,000 deposit to that account as community property. When it added this amount to the value of the marital home, community property totaled $341,950.
Wife’s share would normally be half of this ($170, 975). The Court found the trial court’s division of property to be an equitable split. The value of the house plus the $60,000 of community property totaled more than that amount.
It also noted the generous alimony and child support the trial court awarded. It noted the property taxes and the medical bill’s provisions. It determined that the trial court awarded Wife a fair share of the property.
Disposition
The Arizona Supreme Court amended the trial court’s decision to make the property taxes part of the alimony. Otherwise, it upheld that decision and vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision.
