Cited by

(“[T]ransmutation of separate property to community property [through commingling] occurs only when the identity of the property as separate or community is lost.”); see also O’Hair v. O’Hair, (When a spouse deposits separate funds into a joint bank account, the marital relat

(“[W]here community and separate property are commingled, the entire fund is presumed to be community property unless the separate property can be explicitly traced.”) (citation omitted)

(The rule of “transmutation of separate property to community property occurs only when the identity of the property as separate or community is lost.”).

–60 (1981) (resolving dispute over the nature of account holding commingled premarital funds and earnings during the marriage); Hatcher, 188 Ariz. at 159 (resolving dispute over the purpose of disability payments paid during the marriage); –64 (App. 1986) (same).

as separate or community is lost.”

(“Separate property can be transmuted into community property by agreement, gift or commingling.”).

¶11 Husband cites to support his argument that the award is his separate property.

¶10 “The mere fact that the property was commingled does not cause it to lose its separate identity, as long as the separate property can still be identified.” (explaining that commingling does not cause transmutation “so long as the funds remain traceable”).

Separate property does not lose its separate character, even when commingled with community funds, so long as “the separate property can still be identified.”

23 , (placing burden on FECA beneficiary to show what portion of benefits represented deferred compensation [community property] and what portion represented lost future income [separate property]); , ([t]he share of a lump-sum workers’ compensation award paid during the marriage that compensated the community for lost wages during the marriage was a community asset).

574 , 521 A.2d 320, 327 (1987); , (portion of lump, sum workers’ compensation award for lost wages during marriage is a community asset).