Plachta v. Plachta, 83-681
| Decision Date | 06 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-681,83-681 |
| Citation | 348 N.W.2d 193,118 Wis.2d 329 |
| Parties | Leslie M. PLACHTA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Margaret M. PLACHTA, Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Toby E. Marcovich, Stephen D. Meyer and Marcovich, Cochrane & Milliken, S.C., Superior, for petitioner-appellant.
James L. Cirilli and Borg, Peterson, McDonald, Cirilli & Moran, Superior, for respondent.
Before FOLEY, P.J., and DEAN and CANE, JJ.
The sole issue on appeal in this divorce action is whether the appreciated value of a home gifted to Margaret Plachta during her marriage is a marital asset subject to property division. The trial court concluded that because Leslie Plachta failed to establish that the appreciation was due to his efforts, the home's appreciated value would not be subject to marital property division. Because gifted property and its appreciated value remains the separate property of the donee spouse and because the court did not find that a refusal to divide such separate property created a hardship on the other spouse, we affirm.
During the early part of their marriage, Margaret received a home from her mother valued at $6,000. Leslie and Margaret lived in this home until their divorce. Margaret alone held title to the home, valued at $27,500 at the time of the divorce. Leslie paid all the real estate taxes and performed minor maintenance on the home, including some roof work and painting. The trial court reasoned that sec. 767.255, Stats., allows the division of a gifted property's appreciated value where the appreciation was due to the married couple's community efforts rather than general economic conditions. The court concluded, however, that although Leslie did some minor maintenance and repair work on the property, the evidence failed to establish that the appreciation was due to any of Leslie's efforts, but rather was due to "the general economic conditions of inflation and the normal appreciation of real estate."
Leslie contends that because the legislature in sec. 767.255 did not specifically exempt the appreciated value of a gift, it must have meant to include the appreciated value in the marital estate. He reasons that therefore, absent any other special circumstances, the gift's appreciated value should be divided equally. He also argues that the trial court incorrectly placed the burden of proof on him to show that the appreciation was due to his efforts. Instead, Leslie contends that since the appreciated value is marital property, the burden must be placed on the donee spouse to demonstrate that no other source caused the gift's increased value.
Section 767.255, Stats., provides in part:
Any property shown to have been acquired by either party prior to or during the course of the marriage as a gift, bequest, devise or inheritance or to have been paid for by either party with funds so acquired shall remain the property of such party and may not be subjected to a property division under this section except upon a finding that refusal to divide such property will create a hardship on the other party or on the children of the marriage, and in that event the court may divest the party of such property in a fair and equitable manner. The court shall presume that all other property is to be divided equally between the parties, but may alter this distribution ....
The statute is silent on how to treat the appreciated value of property a spouse acquires by gift or inheritance, nor have our appellate courts decided this issue. Statutory construction is a question of law, and we need not defer to a trial court's conclusion. Roe v. Larson, 94 Wis.2d 204, 206, 287 N.W.2d 824, 825 (Ct.App.1979).
The statement of legislative purpose for ch. 767, Stats., provides no guidance or suggestions concerning the legislative intent on this question. See Legislative purpose, reprinted in Wis.Stat.Ann. sec. 767.01 at 108 (West 1981). Consequently, we must apply the general rules of statutory construction in determining the application of sec. 767.255.
In construing a statute, the primary source is the language of the statute itself. Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 81 Wis.2d 344, 350, 260 N.W.2d 712, 715 (1978). The entire section and related sections are to be considered in its construction or interpretation. Omernik v. State, 64 Wis.2d 6, 12, 218 N.W.2d 734, 738 (1974). In determining the meaning of any single phrase or word in a statute, it is necessary to look at it in the light of the whole statute. State ex rel. Tilkens v. Board of Trustees of Firemen's Pension Fund, 253...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE MARRIAGE OF DERR v. Derr
...this analysis. Similarly, donative intent appears to play no role when the question is appreciated value. In Plachta v. Plachta, 118 Wis. 2d 329, 333, 348 N.W.2d 193 (Ct. App. 1984), we held that appreciation due to general economic conditions remains non-divisible: "We find nothing in ch. ......
-
Marriage of Herr, In re
...of Elam, 97 Wash.2d 811, 650 P.2d 213 (1982); In re Marriage of Johnson, 28 Wash.App. 574, 625 P.2d 720 (1981); Plachta v. Plachta, 118 Wis.2d 329, 348 N.W.2d 193 (1984). As a corollary of that general limitation, it has been held that "[i]n order for a spouse to successfully prove that enh......
-
Routledge v. Routledge
...136 N.J.Super. 397, 346 A.2d 434 (App.Div.1975), certification denied, 69 N.J. 391, 354 A.2d 319 (1976); Plachta v. Plachta, 118 Wis.2d 329, 348 N.W.2d 193 (Ct.App.1984). The import of each of the three cases cited by Donna is that the appreciated value of nonmarital property of one spouse ......
-
Evans v. Evans
...of stock acquired through stock splits as being similar to the economic appreciation of an asset. See Plachta v. Plachta, 118 Wis.2d 329, 333, 348 N.W.2d 193, 195 (Ct. App. 1984). We thus regard the shares of stock acquired through stock splits as nonmarital property. We affirm this portion......
-
§ 6.04 Appreciation of Separate Property During Marriage
...App.3d 346, 455 N.E.2d 1049 (1982). Wisconsin: Lendman v. Lendman, 157 Wis.2d 606, 460 N.W.2d 781 (Wis. App. 1990); Plachta v. Plachta, 118 Wis.2d 329, 348 N.W.2d 193 (Wis. App. 1984). [184] See Wierman v. Wierman, 130 Wis.2d 425, 387 N.W.2d 744 (1986). [185] Ayres v. Ayres, 230 Wis.2d 431,......
-
How Community Property Jurisdictions Can Avoid Being Lost in Cyberspace
...property. See, e.g. , LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 551 (2009). 18. See Suter v. Suter, 546 P.2d 1169, 1173 (Idaho 1976); Plachta v. Plachta, 348 N.W.2d 193, 195 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984) ; SPAHT & MORENO, supra note 5, § 2.5. 19. See, e.g. , Laughlin v. Laughlin, 155 P.2d 1010 (N.M. 1944) (distinguis......