754 S.E.2d 549
Va. Ct. App.2014Background
- Thea Rachel Anthony and Paul Skolnick-Lozano married on February 6, 2004 and separated in 2011.
- They purchased a six-acre property pre-marriage; husband contributed $14,000 and wife $15,000; title was in the wife’s name and mortgage was in the wife’s name.
- Property included a main house, a workshop, and a cottage used as rental; the parties treated the property as their marital home and landlords for the cottage rental.
- In 2011 a fire destroyed the main residence; wife received the insurance proceeds and mortgage balance was paid by wife; cottage remained rented with husband and wife as landlords.
- During equitable distribution, husband sought reimbursement for his pre-marital contribution and requested a resulting trust over cottage rent and insurance proceeds; wife argued no resulting trust and that the property was wife’s separate property.
- Circuit court found the property was wife’s separate property, retraced the husband’s $14,000, valued the property at hearing, awarded the husband $14,000 reimbursement, and later issued opinions reflecting value concerns and no resulting trust.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-marital commingling qualifies for reimbursement | Anthony argues commingling before marriage is outside § 20-107.3(A)(3)(g). | Skolnick-Lozano contends commingling before marriage is covered by § 20-107.3(A)(3)(g). | Pre-marital commingling may be reimbursed under § 20-107.3(A)(3)(g). |
| How to value the contributed property for reimbursement | Anthony claims value should reflect pre-marital contribution value as of hearing. | Skolnick-Lozano argues value is the contributed amount itself. | Value must be determined as of the evidentiary hearing; the court failed to prove value of the contribution. |
| Authority to declare a resulting trust in equitable distribution | Skolnick-Lozano argues court could declare a resulting trust over wife’s property. | Anthony relies on statutory limits that do not permit such trust in this context. | Circuit court lacked authority to declare a resulting trust in a divorce equitable distribution proceeding. |
| Award of appellate costs | Anthony seeks costs incurred on appeal. | No compelling basis to award costs. | Appellate costs denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Floyd v. Floyd, 17 Va. App. 222 (1993) (premarital contributions to property may be considered)
- Wiencko v. Takayama, 62 Va. App. 217 (2013) (statutory interpretation of 20-107.3 regarding commingling)
- Tiller v. Owen, 243 Va. 176 (1992) (no resulting trust where purchaser not obligated to pay purchase money)
- Reid v. Reid, 245 Va. 409 (1993) (divorce jurisdiction is statutory and limited)
- Watkins v. Watkins, 220 Va. 1051 (1980) (court’s equity power in divorce does not dispose of personal property)
- Bowers v. Bowers, 4 Va. App. 610 (1987) (burden of proof on equitable distribution issues)
- Oraee v. Breeding, 270 Va. 488 (2005) (valuation of contributed property when applying 20-107.3)
- Hart v. Hart, 27 Va. App. 46 (1998) (consideration of improvements in valuing non-marital contributions)
- Reid v. Reid, 245 Va. 409 (1993) (stated above as controlling authority on statutory limits)