ROBERT C. DAVID
CHERI GINA DAVID
UPON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY. J. Overton Harris, Judge.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Lawrence D. Diehl for appellant.
John H. Kitzmann for appellee.
Present: Judges Petty, McCullough and Decker.
[64 Va.App. 219] STEPHEN R. McCULLOUGH,
Two issues remain on remand from the Supreme Court. First, husband assigns error to the trial court's classification of a portion of a brokerage account as marital property. Husband contends that wife showed neither substantial appreciation nor significant personal effort on his part with regard to the account. Second, husband assigns error to the valuation date the trial court used for the account. For the reasons noted below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Husband and wife were married for a little over eight years, counting from the date of their marriage on November 16, 2002, to December 3, 2010, when husband filed for divorce. When they married, husband owned a brokerage account with a value of $234,783.16. Wife testified that during their marriage, husband devoted long hours to researching emerging companies and trading stocks. Husband spent his career in the financial services industry. He worked as a branch manager, manager, and financial advisor for Prudential Financial Securities. For a time, he worked for a firm that specializes in helping financial advisors. Wife testified that researching [64 Va.App. 220] stocks " is what he was doing with his time." Husband, however, testified that he " seldom" made trades on the account and that he invested for the long term.
Relying on an account statement from December 2010, the trial court found that the " value of the account increased significantly during the marriage, from approximately $234,783 to $551,521." The trial court also found that the entire $316,521 increase in the value of the account constituted marital property. The court awarded half of the increase in value, $158,260, to wife.
Relying on this Court's precedent, a panel of this Court held that wife failed to meet her burden of proving that husband's efforts caused the account to substantially appreciate.
David v. David, No. 0653-12-2, (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2012). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Code § 20-107.3(A)(3)(a) requires the non-owning spouse to prove that the separate property substantially appreciated during the marriage and that the owning spouse expended significant personal effort with regard to the separate property during the marriage. David v. David,287 Va. 231, 241, 754 S.E.2d 285, 291 (2014). The burden then shifts to the owning spouse to disprove ...