|
How Does the
Family Court Divide "Marital" Property?
The family court has authority to divide
"marital" property as part of any divorce or
separate maintenance action. Because South Carolina
recognizes common law marriage, couples married at
common law can seek the family court’s assistance in
dividing their property. See
What is
Common Law Marriage? However, the
family court cannot divide property if the parties
are (or were) merely living together in romantic
relationship but were not married. Such couples must
file a partition action in circuit court to divide
their property.
There are a couple of common misconceptions
regarding how the court divides marital property.
One is that all property either spouse owns is
marital property. Another is that the court divides
marital property 50/50. Both misconceptions have
elements of truth but are not entirely true.
Martial property is defined in
South Carolina Code Section
20-7-473. Whether marital property is
titled in one spouse’s name or the other’s (or both)
is immaterial to the court’s ability to divide it.
Typically all property acquired by either spouse
during the marriage (up to the date of filing) is
marital property and all property owned by either
spouse prior to the marriage (or after filing) is
not. However there are important and frequently
occurring exceptions to both of these general rules.
Despite being acquired during the marriage,
property acquired by either party by inheritance,
devise, bequest, or gift from a party other than the
spouse does not become marital property. Property
excluded by written contract of the parties (such as
in a pre-nuptual agreement) does not become marital
property. Property exchanged for premarital property
does not become marital property. The increased
value of premarital property does not become marital
property except to the extent that the increase
resulted directly or indirectly from efforts of the
other spouse during the marriage.
Further, some property owned by one spouse prior
to the marriage (or obtained by that spouse during
the marriage via gift, bequest or inheritance) can
become marital property. When marital and
non-marital property are commingled so that it
cannot be determine which of the property is marital
and which is non-marital, the whole amount becomes
marital. This frequently happens when marital funds
(which can include either spouse’s income during the
marriage) are deposited into an account that was
owned by one party prior to the marriage. Thus, if
one wishes for pre- or non-marital accounts to
remain separate property, one should not deposit
marital funds into such accounts.
Another way that pre-marital or non-marital
property can become marital is through the process
of "transmutation." Transmutation occurs when the
parties evince a clear intent to treat this
otherwise non-marital property as marital. A typical
example is when one party owns a house prior to the
marriage but both parties reside together for a
substantial period of time in that house during the
marriage and both contribute funds to pay the home
mortgage. In that circumstance, the court almost
always finds the house to be transmuted into marital
property. A harder case is when one spouse’s income
is used to do repairs on that spouse’s non-marital
property or when both parties reside for years in a
home that would not otherwise be marital property.
Proving the parties "intent" in such circumstances
to treat such property as marital (or not) can be
difficult.
Sometimes, even when property is not marital, one
spouse can be awarded a special equity interest in
that property. This special equity interest can be
awarded even when the property is not transmuted.
Typically this special equity interest is awarded
when one spouse’s direct or indirect contributions
increased the value of the other spouse’s
non-marital property. A frequent example of this is
when one spouse does significant maintenance or
repairs to the other spouse’s inherited property or
provided the other spouse assistance in obtaining
non-marital property.
The family court undergoes a two step process in
dividing marital property. The first step is
identifying what property is part of the "marital
estate." After identifying what property is part of
the marital estate, the second step is to value and
"equitably" divide that property.
The marital estate is created when either party
files an action for separate maintenance or divorce.
The family court cannot divide property that is not
part of the marital estate. Property disposed of
prior to the filing of such an action cannot be
divided (though the court can consider property
disposed of in anticipation of filing such an action
in dividing the marital estate) and property
acquired after the filing of the action is not
marital property (unless it was obtained through the
exchange of marital property).
Once the court has identified what property is
marital and what property is not, the court must
next equitably divide the marital property. There
are numerous factors that the court must consider in
dividing this property. A full listing of the
factors the family court considers in equitably
dividing marital property is contained in
South Carolina Code Section 20-7-472.
Probably the most important factors in dividing
marital property are the value (which includes
encumbrances such as loans or mortgages) of the
individual items of property, the length of the
marriage, and each spouses’ contribution to the to
the acquisition, preservation, depreciation, or
appreciation in value of the marital property,
including the contribution of a spouse as homemaker.
While each party’s contribution to the acquisition,
preservation, depreciation, or appreciation in value
of the marital property is an important factor in
equitable division, the law is clear that the
parties are not entitled to an "accounting" of how
all funds were generated or spent during the
marriage.
The court must determine the value of an item of
property if the parties cannot agree on its
valuation. Valuation is determined as of the date of
filing, though the court can consider both parties’
contributions to any post-filing appreciation or
depreciation of this property in making its award.
Typically, in a long marriage where the parties
had and raised children together the court will
start with a presumption of an equal division of the
marital estate and deviate only slightly from that
division based on other factors. The logic behind
this is that marriage is, in part, an economic
partnership. The court presumes in such lengthy
marriages that both parties divided responsibilities
in a manner they believed fair and thus both should
enjoy the economic benefits of that partnership
equally.
This presumption does not prevent the court from
deviating from an equal division and the court will
often do so if there was substantial fault of one
party in the marital breakup, if one spouse’s poor
health will make it difficult for that spouse to
acquire property in the future, if one spouse’s
family made significant economic contributions to
the marital estate or if one spouse has
significantly greater non-marital assets. However,
in long-term marriages deviations greater than a
60/40 division of the marital estate are rare. In
shorter marriages the court is more likely to
closely analyze each parties’ contributions to the
marital estate before dividing the property. Any
court order dividing the marital estate must examine
all the factors contained in
S.C.
Code Section 20-7-472.
Often property that is marital can be jointly
titled with persons outside the marriage. This
typically occurs when one spouse owns property with
another family member or when one spouse has a
business partnership. The family court has authority
to join third parties in a property division case if
that party is indispensable to the equitable
division of that property. When the amount of one
spouse’s interest in the jointly titled property is
unclear, it is advisable to join all title holders
to that property as part of the case so that the
court can properly determine and divide that
spouse’s interest.
With few exceptions, equitable distribution is
only done once and cannot later be modified without
both parties’ consent. Those exceptions are when the
parties explicitly agree to reserve some or all
equitable distribution issues or when the court
reserves jurisdiction to divide designated items of
property. The court typically reserves jurisdiction
when it will be difficult to value property
presently (such as personal injury claims or stock
options) that can be more easily valued in the
future (when the claim is resolved or the options
vest). However, if property is not divided as part
of the first equitable distribution order and
jurisdiction to divide property is not reserved, the
court has no ability to divide property that was not
already divided. Thus, it is important to make sure
property division claims are investigated thoroughly
and resolved completely.
Equitable distribution claims tend to be fact and
document intensive. Most property division cases
resolve by agreement, without the necessity of the
court deciding how to divide property. However,
whether one is negotiating a marital property
division agreement or preparing for a trial on this
issue, a thorough analysis of code sections
20-7-472 and
473 should
be undertaken with the following goals: 1)
developing evidence that might make the other
spouse’s property part of the marital estate and
might exclude one’s own property from the marital
estate; 2) countering claims that would make one’s
own non-marital property part of the marital estate
or might exclude the other spouse’s property from
the marital estate; 3) maximizing the valuation of
property the other spouse is expected to keep and
minimizing the valuation of property one hopes to
keep (this is not a suggestion that one should
waste, destroy, alienate or otherwise encumber such
property) and 4) providing evidence that would argue
for a greater allocation of the marital estate or
countering claims that the other spouse should
receive a greater allocation of the marital estate.
For more information on property division:
The Auction Method of
Equitable Distribution
|