In Pasley v. Pasley, the supreme court affirmed that a wife’s separate property in the marital home had not transmuted to marital property where she had intended or demonstrated an intent to donate the property to the marital estate. A husband and wife divorced and contested the characterization of the marital home as martial or separate property in their divorce proceedings. The wife owned the home before the marriage and retained the sole title but the husband argued that it had transmuted to martial property by virtue of his contributions. The lower court found that the wife paid the husband for labor done on the house and that despite the husband’s understanding his contribution to marital expenses was not used for the mortgage payments. Therefore the home was characterized as separate property; the husband appealed. On appeal the husband argued that the house transmuted to marital property because the couple lived in the house during the marriage and because of the contributions he argued below. The court emphasized that the correct test for transmutation is when one spouse intends to donate separate property to the marital estate and engages in conduct demonstrating that intent. In affirming the lower court’s decision that transmutation did not occur, the court determined that the lower court had incorrectly employed a different test, but its result was correct through largely correct analysis and correct factual findings with no clear error.
 442 P.3d 738 (Alaska 2019).