## Facts

- Husband and wife married in 1991.
- Wife inherited substantial funds before and during the marriage and kept the inheritance in a Finnish bank account to which husband had no access.
- Wife periodically transferred inherited funds into a joint U.S. checking account to pay living expenses and to buy land and build a Fairfax County residence.
- Husband claimed he contributed non-inheritance funds to the joint account but produced no documentary proof; bank records primarily showed transfers from wife’s Finnish account.
- The parties bought land and constructed the marital residence using funds transferred from wife’s inheritance; husband wrote checks from the joint account and claimed managerial and labor contributions during construction.
- Wife purchased household furnishings and other personal property with funds traceable to her inheritance.
- After wife discovered husband’s infidelity in January 2000, she formed the intent to end the marriage; a friend corroborated her intent and the parties’ manner of living thereafter.
- The circuit court granted a no-fault divorce based on one year living separate and apart, found no marital property (classifying the home and furnishings as wife’s separate property), and entered a decree that did not classify or allocate credit-card debt; the decree also did not clearly award an Isuzu Trooper used by husband.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence supported the finding that the parties lived separate and apart for one year (including intent to end the marriage beginning in January 2000).
2. Whether the residence and household personal property were properly classified as wife’s separate property based on tracing inherited funds.
3. Whether husband’s alleged personal efforts in constructing the home created marital or hybrid property by causing substantial appreciation.
4. Whether the trial court adequately considered the equitable distribution factors under Va. Code § 20-107.3(E).
5. Whether the trial court erred by failing to classify and apportion marital debt, including credit-card debt connected to husband’s investment activity.
6. Whether the Isuzu Trooper should have been awarded to husband.

## Decision

- Affirmed the divorce decree’s finding that the parties satisfied the one-year “separate and apart” requirement.
- Affirmed classification of the Fairfax County residence and household personal property as wife’s separate property traceable to inheritance.
- Affirmed rejection of husband’s transmutation/appreciation argument because the record did not show significant personal efforts resulting in substantial increase in value.
- Affirmed the equitable distribution ruling as adequately reflecting consideration of statutory factors; an explicit, factor-by-factor recitation was not required on this record.
- Reversed and remanded for the trial court to classify and apportion any existing credit-card debt.
- Remanded with direction that the Isuzu Trooper be awarded to husband.

## Legal Principles

- A no-fault divorce based on living “separate and apart” requires proof of physical separation plus intent to permanently end the marriage; intent may be shown by circumstantial evidence and corroborating testimony.
- Appellate courts defer to trial-court credibility findings made after ore tenus evidence and will not disturb them unless plainly wrong or without evidentiary support.
- Inherited property remains separate if it is traceable, even when funds pass through a joint account, absent proof of transmutation under the equitable distribution statute.
- A spouse claiming that personal efforts converted separate property to marital or hybrid property must show significant personal efforts that caused substantial appreciation in value.
- A trial court must classify and distribute marital debts as part of equitable distribution; failure to address proven debt is reversible error requiring remand.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals upheld the divorce and the determination that the residence and furnishings were wife’s separately owned, inheritance-funded property, but reversed because the decree omitted classification and allocation of credit-card debt, and it remanded both to address that debt and to award the Isuzu Trooper to husband.


Bchara v. Bchara, 38 Va. App. 302 (Va. Ct. App. 2002)