Weilmunster v. Weilmunster

Donald Weilmunster (plaintiff) came into his marriage to Lana Weilmunster (defendant) with significant separate assets, including ranches, cattle, and valuable contracts receivable. Donald commingled the income from his separate assets into the same accounts that held the Weilmunsters’ community property. Those commingled funds were used to purchase an interest in W & W Land Partnership (the WWLP interest). After approximately four years of marriage, Donald filed for divorce. At trial before the magistrate, Donald submitted extensive documentary and testimonial accounting evidence establishing that (1) the community’s expenses during the marriage exceeded the community’s assets; (2) the income from Donald’s separate assets was used to cover the community’s shortfall; and (3) there were insufficient community funds in the commingled account to purchase the WWLP interest, meaning that it was purchased using Donald’s separate assets and should be classified as Donald’s separate property. The magistrate held that Donald had provided sufficient accounting evidence to establish that the assets in the commingled account, and the WWLP interest purchased using the commingled account, should both be classified as Donald’s separate property. Lana appealed, arguing that the magistrate erred by allowing Donald to identify and trace his separate property using accounting evidence, also called indirect tracing, without first proving that direct tracing was impossible. The trial court reversed, holding that Donald should not have been allowed to introduce accounting evidence to prove his separate property. Donald appealed.