¶1concurring in part and dissenting in part:
¶2T1 I dissent relative to accounts 0959, 0947, and 1018, for the reason that each of these accounts exhibited an "intent to invest the spousal grantee with an interest in the property." Larman v. Larman, 1999 OK 83, ¶ 10, 991 P.2d 536, 541. Thus, Wife would here be entitled to her marital share of the present value of the accounts as of the date of their closing. Accordingly, I would reverse only as to these accounts.