## Facts

- Albert S. Schulman owned and operated a meat-packing business, Schulman Meats and Provisions (SMP), for decades before marrying Mary Ann Schulman; it was his separate property at marriage.
- The parties married in 1968.
- During the marriage, SMP was incorporated (1972), and Albert became the sole shareholder.
- SMP obtained a $440,000 Small Business Administration loan to expand operations.
- Mary Ann filed for divorce in 1973; the dispute centered on whether the stock and the business’s appreciation during marriage were community or separate property.
- A hearing master found SMP increased in value from about $28,000 to about $600,000 during marriage and attributed the increase primarily to Albert’s marital labor, recommending a Pereira-type allocation.
- The district court rejected the master’s approach, found the increase largely driven by capital and expansion financing, applied a Van Camp-type allocation, and awarded the community a reasonable value for Albert’s services (adjusted for benefits/expenses), with the remaining appreciation treated as Albert’s separate property.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by rejecting a Pereira-type apportionment and applying a Van Camp-type apportionment to the appreciation of a spouse’s separate-property business during marriage.
2. Whether the district court’s allocation—treating most of the business’s increased value as separate property based on capital-driven growth while compensating the community for services—was consistent with Nevada community-property law and equitable division requirements.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the property division.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in selecting a Van Camp-type method.
- The court upheld the finding that capital and expansion financing, rather than marital labor, primarily caused the appreciation.
- The court approved awarding the community a reasonable value for the owner-spouse’s services, with the remaining increase allocated to the separate estate.

## Legal Principles

- Appreciation of a spouse’s separate-property business during marriage must be apportioned between separate and community interests in a manner that achieves substantial justice.
- No single apportionment formula is mandatory; a trial court may select a Pereira-type method when growth is chiefly attributable to marital labor, or a Van Camp-type method when growth is chiefly attributable to capital, the asset’s inherent qualities, or external factors.
- Under a Van Camp-type approach, the community is compensated by awarding the reasonable value of the working spouse’s services, accounting for benefits and expenses already borne by the community, and treating the residual appreciation as separate property when supported by the evidence.
- Appellate review is deferential; the trial court’s choice of method and fact findings will be upheld if supported by the record and consistent with equitable community-property allocation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a divorce property division that applied a Van Camp-type apportionment to a premarital business’s appreciation during marriage, concluding that capital-driven expansion justified treating most appreciation as separate property while compensating the community for the reasonable value of the owner-spouse’s services.


Schulman v. Schulman, 92 Nev. 707, 558 P.2d 525 (Nev. 1976)