## Facts

- Husband and Wife married in 1984 and had one child.
- Before the marriage, Husband co-founded a government-contracting company and owned 51% of it.
- During the marriage, the company’s revenues grew substantially, and the trial court found Husband’s marital-period efforts primarily drove the increase in value.
- Husband left the marital home in 1995 and litigation followed, resulting in an absolute divorce.
- The circuit court awarded Wife a monetary award of $2,581,864.75, treating the appreciation in Husband’s business interest during the marriage as marital property.
- The circuit court also awarded alimony of $8,000 per month for five years, followed by indefinite alimony of $6,000 per month.
- Husband appealed, disputing the classification and valuation of the business appreciation, the treatment of tax liabilities, the payment structure for the monetary award, and the alimony award.

## Issues

1. Whether the appreciation in value of Husband’s premarital business interest during the marriage was marital property.
2. Whether the trial court erred by failing to account for corporate tax liabilities in valuing the business interest for purposes of a monetary award.
3. Whether the trial court erred in calculating the premarital value of Husband’s business interest, affecting the amount of marital appreciation.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in structuring the method of payment for the monetary award.
5. Whether the trial court erred in awarding rehabilitative and then indefinite alimony.

## Decision

- Affirmed the determination that appreciation in Husband’s premarital business interest during the marriage was marital property where attributable to marital-period efforts.
- Vacated the judgment as to the monetary award because the trial court miscalculated the premarital value of Husband’s interest based on a misreading of testimony.
- Remanded for recalculation of the premarital value and any resulting adjustment to the monetary award.
- Rejected challenges concerning corporate tax liabilities and the payment structure, subject to recalculation of the total award on remand.
- Affirmed the alimony award, including the indefinite component, as consistent with the statutory factors and supported by the parties’ financial circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Property acquired before marriage remains nonmarital, but the increase in value of a nonmarital asset may be treated as marital property when the increase is substantially attributable to the labor, skills, or efforts of a spouse during the marriage.
- In determining a monetary award, a court must (1) classify property as marital or nonmarital, (2) value the marital property, and (3) determine whether an award is needed to avoid an unfair result based on statutory factors.
- Accurate identification of the premarital value of a premarital business interest is necessary because marital appreciation depends on the baseline nonmarital value.
- Corporate tax consequences need not reduce a marital-property valuation absent a concrete, non-speculative showing that such liabilities will be incurred and affect the value relevant to the monetary award against the spouse.
- Alimony determinations, including indefinite alimony, are reviewed for proper consideration of statutory factors such as ability to be self-supporting, time for training, marital standard of living, duration of marriage, contributions, and the parties’ financial resources.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that appreciation in a premarital business interest can be marital property when driven by marital-period efforts, but it vacated and remanded the monetary award because the trial court misstated the premarital value of the business interest; it otherwise affirmed the method of payment, rejected the tax-liability challenge, and upheld the rehabilitative-to-indefinite alimony award.


Innerbichler v. Innerbichler, 132 Md. App. 207, 752 A.2d 291 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000)