Cited by

Even if it is not “the argument the defendant makes on appeal, we will not ignore fundamental error when we find it.”

Here, the court found that the “amount spent increasing the [Endovascular] property’s equity [came] from the community and commingled accounts.” It then used a Drahos calculation to determine the community’s $1,254,838.37 equitable lien against Endovascular.7

¶4 The appraiser valued the Carver Property at the time of service at $295,000 and documented that the HELOC-financed solar panels 1

¶5 the superior court determined the community had an equitable lien of $32,076.97 and awarded Husband $16,038.40.

Burger acknowledged that Waldren was entitled to an equitable lien of $39,512.55, plus reimbursement for his $3,000 down payment contribution.

–50 (App. 3 MCPHAUL v. MCPHAUL Decision of the Court 1985) (allowing the community an equitable lien for community contributions to separate property).

To determine the community interest, and concluded that the community lien on the real property amounted to $14,692.48.

More specifically, (the “Drahos/Barnett formula”), is an appropriate method of establishing the community’s equitable lien on a spouse’s separate property, providing for a fair division of the separate property’s increase in value proportionate to the amount the c

The superior court found that the house was Mother’s

If home loan payments are made from commingled funds, “there is a presumption that community funds were used.”

–51 (App. 1985) used to calculate a community lien on separate real property.

We reverse, however, the court’s in calculating the community lien for capital contributions to the property.

(“[A] residence which is separate property does not change its character because it is used as a family home and mortgage payments are made from community funds.”).