To show transmutation of separate property to marital property requires evidence of owner’s clear intent to contribute the property. Commingling is not enough. Wife’s contributions to Husband’s separate property did not transmute into marital property, but did support an equalization payment to Wife in proportion to her contribution. Court of Appeals awards Wife slightly less than Circuit Court.

Sheilafaye Goodwin, Respondent, v. Charles Lewis Goodwin, Appellant

Missouri Law pertaining to Marital and Separate Property

Section 452.330 governs a trial court’s distribution and classification of marital and non-marital assets. That section requires that the trial court set aside to each party their non-marital property and divide the marital property equitably. Generally, property owned by one spouse prior to the marriage will remain non-marital property and will be awarded to the owner of that property. Moreover, "property which would otherwise be nonmarital property shall not become marital property solely because it may have become commingled with marital property." Property acquired before the marriage and which remains titled in the name of the original owner is separate property unless the record shows that the owner intended to change the status of the property from separate to marital.’ By contrast, if the owner intended to change the status of the property from separate to marital, it becomes marital." To transform the nature of the property from separate to marital, "[a] ‘clear intention’ to contribute to the community or to the other spouse must be demonstrated." "[C]ourts must set aside a spouse’s separate property in dissolution cases, and property is deemed separate or marital based on the source of funds that financed the purchase

In this case, Husband purchased the property years before the marriage. While the parties discussed placing both of their names on the real property’s title, Husband declined to do so. Essentially, the trial court held that because Wife made financial contributions to improve the real property, there was an implied agreement to transmute the property. Wife did not testify that Husband indicated that he intended to make a gift of the property to her. Rather, the record reveals that she improved the property largely to raise her own standard of living and not to increase the value of jointly owned property. This is statutorily insufficient to transmute the property. "Property which would otherwise be nonmarital property shall not become marital property solely because it may have become commingled with marital property." Other than this commingling, there is no evidence that Husband intended to change the nature of the property. "A commingling of nonmarital and marital property will not transmute nonmarital property into marital property unless the owner intended to convert the nonmarital property to marital property." Kinsey-Geujen v. Geujen, 984 S.W.2d 577, 579 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999). The court’s statement, that the "commingling of both of their non-marital assets transmuted this real estate into marital property" is, therefore, a misapplication of the law.