AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The parties, previously owning separate homes in Alaska, sold their properties before relocating. The husband deposited his proceeds into a separate account, which also held community funds. They entered into a premarital agreement stating equal interest in jointly titled property acquired during marriage. A home in Arizona, purchased and titled in both names, had its mortgage paid with community funds. The husband contends the down payment came from his separate account, funded by the sale of his Alaska property, asserting the Arizona home should be considered his separate property.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant (Husband): Argued that the Arizona home should be considered his separate property because the down payment was made from an account holding proceeds from the sale of his separate Alaska property.
• Respondent-Appellee (Wife): Testified that the intention was for the Arizona home to be community property, implying disagreement with the Husband's claim.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Arizona home, purchased during the marriage and titled in both parties' names, should be considered the husband's separate property based on the source of the down payment.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to treat the Arizona home as community property was affirmed.

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring): The court found that the down payment for the Arizona home came from an account containing both the husband's separate property proceeds and community funds. The husband failed to rebut the presumption that the home was community property, as he did not provide sufficient proof that the separate proceeds were traceable or not intermingled with community funds. The court applied the correct standard, holding that property acquired during marriage is presumptively community property unless proven otherwise by the party claiming separate ownership. The husband's argument that the district court applied the wrong standard of review was rejected, as was his contention that the court agreed the house was acquired with his separate "traceable" funds. The court also dismissed the husband's claim regarding the application of Alaska law, affirming that the property was presumptively community property and the husband had not met his burden of overcoming this presumption.