Appellant Stephanie Highsmith Wife and appellee Louis Highsmith Husband were married in 1993 and, after a bench trial, were awarded a final decree of divorce on July 14, 2010. In the final decree of divorce, the trial court found, in relevant part, that the following property was non-marital and the separate property of Husband: c Equity of $23,931 in the Husband’s Frederica Building Services office in St. Simons Island, Georgia; d Equity of $70,900 in an undivided tract of four lots located adjacent to the parties’ marital home on Blythe Island, Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia, taking into account the Husband’s construction of a dock and tennis court, during the marriage, at a cost of approximately $30,000. . . The trial court found, in relevant part, that the following property was marital and subject to equitable division, making awards thereof accordingly: a The Husband’s office for Frederica Building Services, St. Simons Island, Georgia. . ., is awarded to Husband. p The Scottrade account of the Wife, as set forth in her Domestic Relations Financial Affidavit. . ., in the approximate amount of $73,780, is awarded to the Wife. ff The marital portion of the tract of land adjacent to the parties’ marital residence. . ., is awarded to Husband. Because the parties had a rental property business during the marriage, most of the marital property was in the form of houses and/or land lots. By agreement of the parties, the trial court valued most of the real estate properties based on county tax records. In total, the value of the marital estate which the trial court awarded to Wife was $872,000 and the portion awarded to Husband was $766,570. The trial court awarded Wife a greater share of the marital estate because the trial court took into consideration a proposed credit of up to $210,000 which reflected an amount Wife testified she removed from her Scottrade account and commingled in a joint account of marital funds for the purpose of investing in the parties’ rental property business.
After the divorce decree was issued, Wife moved for a new trial which motion the trial court denied. We granted Wife’s application for discretionary review under this Court’s previously instituted Pilot Project for domestic relations cases now set forth as Supreme Court Rule 34 4. On appeal, Wife contends that the trial court erred when it improperly designated her Scottrade account as marital property, improperly applied the source of funds rule, improperly made an erroneous finding of fact, improperly valued Husband’s separate property, and improperly valued property adjacent to the marital home. For reasons set forth below, the trial court’s order denying Wife’s motion for new trial is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
