Appellant Judith Fernandez Payson and appellee Stanley Leon Payson were married in September 1991 and separated in April 1999. On September 8, 2000, at the close of a bench trial on their cross-complaints for divorce, the trial court issued an oral ruling in which it granted the divorce, distributed property, and resolved the issues of child custody, support, and visitation. The final judgment and decree of divorce incorporating the trial court’s oral pronouncement was filed October 20, 2000. In its equitable division of marital property, the trial court awarded Mrs. Payson a stock account which contained Home Depot stock Mrs. Payson had owned prior to the marriage, Home Depot stock she had received after exercising stock options that had vested prior to the marriage,1 Home Depot stock that was marital property,2 and the appreciation on the entire account. Contesting the trial court’s classification of this account as marital property subject to equitable division, Mrs. Payson obtained discretionary review of the trial court’s judgment in this Court. In granting review, we stated we were particularly concerned with “whether the trial court erred in classifying Wife’s appreciated shares of Home Depot stock as a marital asset for purposes of the equitable division of property. See Bass v. Bass, 264 Ga. 506, 507 1994; Yates v. Yates, 259 Ga. 131 1989; Thomas v. Thomas, 259 Ga. 73, 77 1989; Halpern v. Halpern, 256 Ga. 639 1987.”
1. The equitable division of property is an allocation to the parties of the assets acquired during the marriage, based on the parties’ respective equitable interests. Byers v. Caldwell, 273 Ga. 228, 229 539 SE2d 141 2000. 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.” Campbell v. Campbell, 255 Ga. 461, 462 339 SE2d 591 1986. Only property acquired as a direct result of the labor and investments of the parties during the marriage is subject to equitable division. McArthur v. McArthur, 256 Ga. 762 353 SE2d 486 1987. A property interest brought to the marriage by one of the marriage partners is a non-marital asset and is not subject to equitable division since it was in no sense generated by the marriage. Campbell v. Campbell, supra, 255 Ga. at 462. See also Moore v. Moore, 249 Ga. 27 2 287 SE2d 185 1982. It is a question of law for the court whether a particular category of property may legally constitute a marital or non-marital asset, but whether a particular item of property actually is a marital or non-marital asset may be a question of fact for the trier of fact. Franklin v. Franklin, 267 Ga. 82 2 475 SE2d 890 1996; Janelle v. Janelle, 265 Ga. 116 1 454 SE2d 133 1995; Bass v. Bass, 264 Ga. 506 448 SE2d 366 1994. The appreciation in value of a non-marital asset during the marriage is a marital asset subject to equitable division if the appreciation is the result of the efforts of either spouse or both spouses, but to the extent the appreciation is only the result of market forces, it is a non-marital asset and therefore not subject to equitable division. Bass v. Bass, 264 Ga. at 508. Whether the appreciation in value of the non-marital asset is due to market forces or to the individual or joint efforts of the spouses is a question of fact. Id., at 508.
