Nack v. Edwards Nack
Virginia Court of Appeals
2007 WL 2592902 (2007)
Facts
Steven Nack and Debra Edwards Nack signed a prenuptial agreement. The agreement provided that Nack’s stock in White City Electric (WCE) and Nack’s two cars were Nack’s separate property. Nack and Edwards Nack then married. Nack received a distribution of almost $300,000 as part of his WCE stock ownership. Nack deposited that distribution check into a joint checking account that he had with Edwards Nack. Nack and Edwards Nack also made many other deposits to and withdrawals from the joint checking account. The checking account was used to finance an investment account with Cornerstone Capital Management (Cornerstone). The investment account later funded a Legg Mason account. At one point in the marriage, Edwards Nack drove one of Nack’s two cars as her primary vehicle. Edwards Nack paid for the maintenance of the car using joint funds. Both cars remained titled under Nack’s name throughout the marriage. The couple divorced. Nack did not provide the trial court with any account balances or deposit slips with respect to the joint checking account. The trial court ruled that the Legg Mason account and the cars were marital property. Nack appealed, arguing that because his WCE stock funds were separate property and used to fund the Legg Mason account, a portion of the Legg Mason account should be deemed separate property.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Humphreys, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Haley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 711,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
