29 Va. App. 408 - Moran v. Moran’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The court shall classify property as part marital property and part separate property as follows: When marital property and separate property are commingled by contributing one category of property to another, resulting in the loss of identity of the contributed property, the classification of the contributed property shall be transmuted to the category of property receiving the contribution. However, to the extent the contributed property is retraceable by a preponderance of the evidence and was not a gift, such contributed property shall retain its original classification.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 Va. App. 286 - Duva v. Duva · 46 Va. App. 399 - Wiese v. Wiese

2. “The increase in value of separate property becomes marital if the expenditure of marital funds or a married party’s personal efforts generated the increase in value. The significant factor, however, is not the amount of effort or funds expended, but rather the fact that value was generated or added by the expenditure or significant personal effort.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. W. Pettus Gilman v. Judith Cochrane Gilman · 43 Va. App. 18 - Courembis v. Courembis

3. “The evidence showed that the Morans used marital funds to pay the monthly mortgage obligation for the Berkshire house. Thus, they commingled marital funds with separate property, resulting in the presumption that the marital funds were transmuted to separate property. However, to the extent the marital funds reduced the principal of the mortgage, that amount is traceable from the separately acquired equity. See Hart [v. Hart], 27 Va.App. [46,] 65, 497 S.E.2d [496,] 505 [(1998)] (stating that the Brandenberg formula for determining marital contribution includes amount of marital funds expended in the reduction of mortgage principal).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 Va. App. 286 - Duva v. Duva