## Facts

- Raymond G. Speer and Olive J. Speer married in 1949.
- Before the marriage, Raymond received shares of stock in the family business from his parents as a gift.
- During the marriage, the value of Raymond’s shares rose substantially, from about $100 per share to $818.43 per share.
- During the years the stock rose in value, Raymond worked extensively for the business, including nights and weekends, and accepted a reduced salary.
- Olive contributed to the business in supportive ways, including entertaining business guests.
- The parties later divorced. In dividing property, the trial court treated part of the stock’s increased value as attributable to community efforts during marriage.
- The trial court awarded Olive a money judgment of $371,200 and secured payment by placing an equitable lien on Raymond’s shares in closely held corporations (including Speer, Inc. and Westec, Inc.).
- Raymond appealed, arguing the trial court lacked an adequate basis for finding the community had not already been paid for Raymond’s services through his salary and other benefits.
- Raymond also sought a writ of prohibition against the district judge (Quinlan) to stop enforcement of the judgment through execution on the stock while appellate review was pending.

## Issues

1. When a spouse’s separate-property corporate stock rises in value during marriage, may the community claim an interest in that increase to the extent it resulted from community labor rather than from passive factors?
2. In deciding whether the community is entitled to share in the stock’s increase, must the trial court make findings supported by evidence on whether the community was already adequately paid for the spouse’s services (including by comparison to pay for similar work)?
3. Was the trial court’s money judgment and equitable lien on the separate stock proper where the record did not support the trial court’s conclusion that community services exceeded community compensation?
4. Should a writ of prohibition issue to stop execution on the stock while the appeal is pending?

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court accepted the general rule that the community may be entitled to a share of the increase in value of separate property when that increase is caused by community labor.
- The Court reversed the portion of the divorce judgment awarding Olive the $371,200 money judgment and the equitable lien securing that award.
- The Court remanded for a new trial on the property issues because the record did not support the trial court’s finding that the community’s services were not adequately compensated, and the necessary factual work could not be completed on the existing findings.
- Because the underlying award supporting execution was reversed, the request for extraordinary relief to stop execution did not provide an independent basis for ongoing relief; the matter was resolved through the appellate disposition.

## Legal Principles

- Separate property generally remains separate, but the community may have a claim to share in the increase in value of separate property when the increase is attributable to labor or efforts during marriage rather than passive appreciation.
- A court apportioning an increase in value between separate and community interests must determine whether the community was adequately paid for the spouse’s services through salary and related benefits; without that determination, the court cannot reliably award the community an additional share of increased value.
- Evidence relevant to adequate compensation may include proof of reasonable pay for comparable work by non-owner employees or other objective measures tied to the services performed.
- A large money award tied to increased value of separate property, and security for that award through a lien on separate assets, requires factual findings supported by sufficient evidence; if the evidentiary basis is missing, the award must be reversed and retried.

## Conclusion

Speer v. Quinlan holds that Idaho law permits a community claim to part of the increase in value of a spouse’s separate corporate stock when marital labor caused that increase, but the trial court must support any such award with evidence and findings showing the community was not already adequately paid for the services; because that support was lacking, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed the money judgment and equitable lien and remanded for a new trial on the property division.


Speer v. Quinlan, 525 P.2d 314 (1973)