Plaintiff-wife was awarded half of the defendant-husband’s non-liquid assets which the husband claims was improperly valued and awarded.  The Appellate Court held that because the asset was actively managed, the date of commencement value was properly used by the trial court and that these non-liquid assets constituted marital, not separate, property due to the husband’s comingling of funds.  However, the trial court erred in awarding half the value of the non-liquid assets without considering the tax consequences of liquidating the assets.  Liquidation of the assets in question would have incurred significant tax burdens which would then be borne by the defendant alone and would result in him receiving a substantially smaller share of the marital property.

LINK TO DECISION