Pfrengle v. Pfrengle

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that commingled funds were marital because they were not maintained separately and thus that the nonmarital funds “lost their separate nonmarital character”
• rejecting the argument that “commingling can occur only when funds are deposited in a joint account”
• finding properties acquired during marriage by former husband’s solely owned companies were marital assets because commingled funds were used to acquire properties
• “When Pfrengle commingled marital and nonmarital funds in his personal account, all the funds in that account lost them separate nonmarital character.”
• “Money is fungible, and once commingled it loses its separate character.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).