Evidence Held Sufficient
Where plaintiff used his equity in first residence to purchase a new home titled in both parties’ names, thereby commingling the properties so as to transmute his equity into marital property, the residence was properly classified as marital. In re Thacker
A family residence was properly deemed marital property where the husband purchased the house approximately two months before the parties were married by borrowing $3,000 for the down payment and mortgaging the remaining purchase price, as he never spent any money from personal funds accumulated prior to the marriage, and the mortgage payments were made with marital funds. In re Ohrt
Where house was purchased by the parties prior to, but “in contemplation of” their marriage; the parties were living together at the time of the purchase and had discussed acquiring a marital home; they both accompanied the real estate agent to view the property for the first time; they both signed the offer to purchase the property; former wife’s parents provided a loan of $5,000 towards the down payment; and additional $5,000 came from the parties joint funds; they used joint funds in addition to the rental income from the property to make the mortgage payments prior to moving into the home; and during the marriage all mortgage payments were made from marital funds, the house was considered a marital asset. In re Malters
Evidence of Intent
Where a husband testified that he and his wife, prior to the purchase of their house, had conversations regarding the method of holding title to it in which they discussed the house being an investment of his inheritance money, and they segregated a portion of their inheritances, these actions tended to indicate that the portion invested in the marital home, used for the parties’ mutual benefit, and treated, during the marriage, as joint property, was intended to be marital property. In re Rogers
Expenses
Since petitioner was awarded sole possession of the marital estate as well as the household furniture and furnishings, it was not inequitable to require her to pay those expenses relating to maintaining the home’s value, such as mortgage, taxes and insurance. In re Hellwig
Factors
Where marital home was award to former wife with the requirement that she pay former husband one-half of the home’s present equity within four years, but she did not have to sell the home or otherwise disrupt the children in order to fulfill this obligation, the trial court properly balanced the needs of the former wife and the children with the right of the former husband to share in the home’s equity. In re Keller
The court affirmed the holding of the trial court that the marital home was marital property where, although defendant could trace some non-marital funds to the purchase of the home, the home was purchased after the marriage, title was held in joint tenancy, and marital funds were used to pay mortgage payments. In re Smith
A trial court’s award to a husband of a share of the marital house less than his contribution to its purchase was reasonable when balanced against the facts that the marriage lasted a long time, his economic circumstances, including his occupation and employability and his opportunity to acquire assets and income, were superior to the wife’s, and although the parties’ daughter was working full time as a secretary and their son was working part time at a restaurant, both were living at home, and custody was awarded to petitioner. In re Rogers
