Linda Wife and Seaborn Husband Wright were married in 1985. It was a second marriage for both, and they had no children. Each brought assets and debts to the marriage, including Husband’s house which was mortgaged. In 1991, his mother died and left her estate to him. He used his inheritance to start a family business, in which he and Wife both worked and were salaried employees. In 2000, she filed for divorce. After conducting a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting a divorce and dividing the marital property. We granted wife’s application for discretionary appeal pursuant to this Court’s pilot project, pursuant to which we grant all non-frivolous applications seeking discretionary appeal from a final divorce decree. 1. Wife contends that the trial court erred in determining which portions of the property were marital and non-marital assets. What items of property can legally constitute a marital or non-marital asset is a question of law for the court. However, whether a particular item of property actually constitutes a marital or non-marital asset may be a question of fact for the trier of fact to determine from the evidence. Cit. Bass v. Bass , 264 Ga. 506, 507 448 SE2d 366 1994. A review of the record shows that, in making the award, the trial court correctly applied the legal principle that “only property acquired as a direct result of the labor and investments of the parties during the marriage is subject to equitable division. Cit.” Payson v. Payson , 274 Ga. 231, 232 1 552 SE2d 839 2001. Because Husband brought the house to the marriage, only the subsequent increase in the net equity attributable to marital contributions was a marital asset. Hubby v. Hubby , 274 Ga. 525 556 SE2d 127 2001; Thomas v. Thomas , 259 Ga. 73, 76 377 SE2d 666 1989. Husband started the family business after the marriage, but used his own separate funds to do so. Bailey v. Bailey , 250 Ga. 15 295 SE2d 304 1982. Therefore, only the appreciation in the value of the business attributable either to his and Wife’s individual efforts or to their joint efforts was subject to an equitable division. Bass v. Bass , supra.
2. Wife’s primary contention is that the trial court erroneously failed to award her an appropriate share of that portion of the equity in the house and the appreciation in the business which was a marital asset. According to her, she should receive one-half of the divisible equity and appreciation. However, an equitable division of marital property does not necessarily mean an equal division. Goldstein v. Goldstein , 262 Ga. 136 1 414 SE2d 474 1992. “The purpose behind the doctrine of equitable division of marital property is ‘to assure that property accumulated during the marriage be fairly distributed between the parties.’ Cit.” Payson v. Payson , supra at 232 1. Each spouse is entitled to an allocation of the marital property based upon his or her respective equitable interest therein. Byers v. Caldwell , 273 Ga. 228, 229 539 SE2d 141 2000. Thus, an award is not erroneous simply because one party receives a seemingly greater share of the marital property. See Mitchely v. Mitchely , 237 Ga. 138, 139 227 SE2d 34 1976. See also Clements v. Clements , 255 Ga. 714 342 SE2d 463 1986; Stokes v. Stokes , 246 Ga. 765 273 SE2d 169 1980 trier of fact may award whole or part interest in property to one spouse or require the parties to sell property.
