Daniel now appeals, arguing in three issues that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by divesting him of his separate property (2) without requiring Brooke to provide legally sufficient evidence tracing the funds used to purchase Clementine back to her separate estate, and that (3) the trial court erred in finding that the funds deposited by Brooke into Daniel’s account were held for her benefit and were used to purchase Clementine. On appeal, Daniel asserts in his third issue that no evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the funds Brooke deposited into Daniel’s account were held there for her benefit, in essence challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Brooke’s separate funds were used to buy the dog. Relatedly, he argues in his second issue that Brooke failed to meet her burden of tracing the funds on deposit in his account to her separate funds to rebut the presumption that the funds in his account, prior to marriage, were his own. In support of his assertion that the holder of record of an account is the owner of the funds in that account, Daniel cites a repealed statute formerly providing that the funds on deposit in any bank shall be presumed to be the separate property of the party named as the holder of the account. Nor is Daniel correct that Brooke bore the burden of tracing the property she claimed to be her separate property in order to rebut the community presumption; the community presumption is inapposite here, as the parties were not married at the time Clementine was purchased.

Tags: best hypoallergenic dogs, account, hypoallergenic dogs, hypoallergenic dog breeds, money, hypoallergenic dog food homemade