Manning v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

This dissolution-of-marriage action presents one primary issue for our consideration. Appellee owned an apartment building before his marriage to Appellant. During the marriage, in exchange for the apartment building, the parties acquired in their joint names an undivided one-sixth (1 /6) partnership interest in Autumn Park Partnership (Autumn Park), a real estate partnership. At the time of the exchange, Appellee had a 94% non-marital interest in the apartment building. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals held that Appellees non-marital interest in the apartment building did not become marital property because the partnership interest was placed in the parties joint names. Therefore, Appellee was awarded a 94% non-marital interest in the parties partnership interest in Autumn Park. Did Appellees non-marital interest in the apartment building transmute into marital property when the partnership interest was placed in the parties joint names? Because, one, title is not controlling in determining propertys character, and, two, Appellee and his parents did not intend for Appellant to receive any interest in the partnership as a result of placing the partnership interest in the parties joint names, we hold that Appellees non-marital interest in the apartment building did not become marital property simply because it was used to acquire property that was placed in the parties joint names. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appealss decision upholding the trial courts judgment awarding Appellee a 94% non-marital interest in the parties partnership interest.