In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Trovato v. Vincent Henry Trovato ( 2015 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A13-1617
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Trovato, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Vincent Henry Trovato,
Appellant.
Filed March 30, 2015
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-11-7530
Kevin G. Leiran, Leiran Law Offices, LLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Vincent H. Trovato, Eden Prairie, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and
Connolly, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CONNOLLY, Judge
In this marital-dissolution dispute, appellant argues that the district court failed to
recognize that he traced a nonmarital interest to the parties’ marital home. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Vincent Trovato and respondent Nicole Trovato were married in 1990
in New York. During the marriage, the parties relocated to Minnesota and purchased a
home in Eden Prairie. Appellant’s parents wrote three checks to appellant, totaling
$18,000, to assist with the down payment of the marital home. These checks were
deposited into appellant and respondent’s joint checking account.
The parties separated in November 2010, and respondent initiated divorce
proceedings in 2011. The matter came on for trial on March 5, 2013, and the dissolution
was entered by Judgment and Decree on June 27, 2013. The district court found that the
marital home was purchased with financial assistance from appellant’s parents and
determined that the $18,000 was a gift to both appellant and respondent. The district
court denied appellant’s nonmarital interest, assessed the value of the home at $225,000,
and awarded respondent a lien for one-half of the remaining equity in the homestead,
totaling $73,595. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of (1) the fair market value
of the parties’ marital homestead, (2) the denial of appellant’s nonmarital interest in the
homestead, (3) the entry of a permanent maintenance award in favor of respondent, and
(4) the distribution of various financial accounts. The district court denied the motion.
This appeal followed.
DECISION
Appellant argues that the district court erred by denying his nonmarital interest in
the parties’ marital homestead. We disagree. “Whether property is marital or nonmarital
is a question of law, but a reviewing court must defer to the [district] court’s underlying
2
findings of fact. However, if [the reviewing court is] left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made, [it] may find the [district] court’s decision to be
clearly erroneous, notwithstanding the existence of evidence to support such findings.”
Olsen v. Olsen, 562 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Minn. 1997) (quotation and citation omitted); see
Baker v. Baker, 753 N.W.2d 644, 649 (Minn. 2008) (stating that “[appellate courts]
independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving
deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”). All property acquired during a
marriage is presumed to be marital; property acquired before the marriage is nonmarital.
Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b (2014); Antone v. Antone, 645 N.W.2d 96, 100-01 (Minn.
2002). To overcome the presumption that property is marital, a party must show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the property is nonmarital. Baker, 753 N.W.2d at
649-50.
The district court stated:
The homestead was purchased with financial assistance from
Husband’s parents in the form of gifts of at least $7,500 and
$5,000. Based on the limited evidence presented, the Court
found it more credible that the gift was intended for both
Husband and Wife. “All property acquired by either spouse
during the marriage is presumptively marital, but a spouse
may defeat the presumption by showing by a preponderance
of the evidence that the property acquired is nonmarital.”
Baker v. Baker, 753 N.W.2d 644, 649 (Minn. 2008) (citing
Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b (2006)). Husband did not
meet his burden of proof to show the gift from Husband’s
parents was meant as a gift solely to Husband.
The record supports the findings of fact incorporated in this statement. At trial, appellant
produced three cashier’s checks showing a total gift of $18,000 from appellant’s parents,
3
made during the parties’ marriage, payable to appellant. He also produced a “gift letter”
from the parties’ mortgage company, which indicates that the $18,000 was given to
appellant to be used for the purchase of the marital home. Although appellant testified
that his parents’ gift was intended to be for only him based on a promise from his youth,
respondent testified as follows:
Q: [D]id you receive any assistance in the purchase of [the
marital home]?
A: Yes. [Appellant’s] mom and dad gave us money for a
down payment.
....
Q: And was this a gift to—did you consider this a gift to
both of you?
A: Yes, for the family to purchase a home.
Q: And those checks are listed under our Exhibit—I believe
our Exhibit 8 and deposit slip Number 9. And our Exhibit
Number 10, there was actually a document from [your
mortgage company] with the names of [appellant’s parents]?
A: Yes.
Q: And do you recall what that note says?
A: It said that they were giving us the money and it wasn’t
to be paid back.
Q: Now it does, to be fair, just say [appellant], but it does
say this is a bona fide gift and there’s no obligation, express
or implied, to repay this sum at any time. Again, did you—
when this money was deposited what account did it go into?
A: I believe it went into our joint account.
A nonmarital interest in property may be established based upon credible
testimony. See, e.g., Doering v. Doering, 385 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Minn. App. 1986)
(affirming the district court’s resolution of conflicting testimony regarding the amount of
a party’s nonmarital interest in the homestead). The district court determined that
respondent’s testimony was more credible than appellant’s testimony and we defer to the
district court’s credibility determinations. Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210
4
(Minn. 1988). Consequently, we conclude that the district court did not err by
concluding that the monetary gift from appellant’s parents was marital property.
Affirmed.
5