In my last post, I wrote about the marital property presumption and the significance of that presumption in the classification of marital property. Divisible property is not marital property, so the marital property presumption does not apply to help with the classification of property, value or debt acquired after the date of separation. So when there is evidence that marital property has increased in value between separation and the ED trial, does one party have to prove the cause of the increase before the court can distribute the increased value? Or, when one party has received income from a marital asset, like a rental house or an LLC, does one party have to prove that the income was not received as the result of the actions of a party before the court can divide the income between the parties?
Tag: equitable distribution; classification; divisible property; burdens of proof