## Facts

- Husband and wife entered marriage with substantial separate estates.
- During the marriage, husband commingled separate funds with community funds in at least one account used to pay expenses and acquire assets.
- A principal dispute concerned whether assets acquired from the commingled account—especially an interest in a land partnership—were community property or the husband’s separate property.
- At trial, the husband used indirect tracing (accounting reconstruction) to show that community income was insufficient to cover community expenses and purchases, requiring use of his separate funds.
- The magistrate found the husband’s accounting credible, concluded he traced many disputed assets to his separate estate, and found the community had no residual interest in the commingled funds because community expenses exceeded community income.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse may prove the separate character of property acquired from a commingled account through indirect tracing/accounting rather than direct tracing.
2. Whether commingling required the disputed acquisitions to be treated as community property absent direct tracing.
3. Whether the district court, acting in an appellate capacity, improperly reweighed evidence and displaced the magistrate’s supported factual findings on property classification.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the district court in part and reinstated the magistrate’s findings and conclusions on classification and distribution of property, subject to limited adjustments.
- The court held that indirect tracing/accounting is a permissible method to identify separate property interests in commingled funds when supported by credible, detailed evidence.
- The court upheld the magistrate’s acceptance of the husband’s accounting evidence and the finding that community expenses exceeded community income, supporting the conclusion of no community interest in certain commingled funds used for disputed acquisitions.
- The court ruled the district court erred by substituting its own view of the evidence for the magistrate’s where the magistrate’s findings were supported by substantial, competent evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Commingling of separate and community funds does not, by itself, convert separate property to community property if the separate component can be identified.
- A spouse claiming a separate property interest bears the burden to prove the asset’s separate character.
- Indirect tracing (accounting reconstruction) may be used to establish that assets acquired from a commingled account were funded by separate property; the method is not barred merely because direct tracing might be possible.
- Property classification determinations resting on competing financial reconstructions and credibility assessments are factual findings reviewed for clear error; an appellate tribunal may not reweigh evidence where findings are supported by substantial, competent evidence.

## Conclusion

The court held that credible indirect tracing can rebut the community-property presumption for assets acquired from commingled funds and reinstated the trial court’s supported findings after concluding the intermediate appellate court improperly reweighed the evidence.


Weilmunster v. Weilmunster, 124 Idaho 227, 858 P.2d 766 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993)