Cited by

That amount included $3 million for wife’s equity in a wholly owned community business and $2,094,000 for wife’s equity in a ¶ 17 (App. 2015).

¶ 30 (App. 2015) (holding a 3 MUSCARELLA v. MUSCARELLA Decision of the Court husband’s distributions from the community business were “attributable to the community as profits derived from existing community assets”).

[c]hange the status of community property used to acquire new property or the status of that new property as community property.”); ¶ 22 (App. 2015) (noting that “the community is generally entitled to the profits and gains attributable to community assets” (cleaned up); “[T]he service of a petition for dissolution does not alter the status of preexisting community property.” (citation omitted)).

“[T]he spouse seeking to overcome the presumption has the burden of establishing the separate character of the property by clear and convincing evidence.” ¶ 22 (App. 2015).

Within that division, we review the superior court’s “determination of the value of a business in a divorce proceeding for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 13 (App. 2015).

-01, ¶¶ 27-28, 30 (App. 2015).

201, ¶¶ 22, 30 (App. 2015).

We review a superior court’s valuation of a business as part of a divorce proceeding for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 13 (App. 2015), and view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the court’s decision

at 597, ¶ 20 (–98, ¶ 13 (App. 2015)).

¶10 “We review the superior court’s valuation of a business in a divorce proceeding for an abuse of discretion,” ¶ 13 (App. 2015), and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court’s ruling, ¶ 5 (App. 1998).

¶5 “The characterization of property as separate or community is a question of law we review de novo.” ¶ 22 (App. 2015).

¶ 14 (App. 2010); ¶ 22 (App. 2015).