Michael Schmitz and Christina Schmitz married in Juneau in January 1999. The couple's child, Johnathon, was born in March 1999. While Christina and Michael were married, Christina was Johnathon's primary caregiver. Michael and Christina separated in August 2001. Michael is a certified public accountant and a partner in the firm of Schmitz \& Buck. Michael has owned a fifty percent interest in Schmitz \& Buck. In addition to his partnership in Schmitz \& Buck, Michael owns a twelve-and-a-half percent share in the Nugget Men's Store. ... Michael's share in the store was purchased with proceeds from a tort settlement resulting from a car accident. As to Schmitz \& Buck, Christina proved that Michael spent significant marital time working at the business. Because the proof of Michael's increased income that Christina was able to present suggests that the business's value may have increased during the marriage, we remand this issue to the superior court, to allow Christina an opportunity to present evidence of the increase in the value of Schmitz \& Buck during the marriage. By contrast, an active appreciation analysis fails on the element of marital contribution when applied to the Nugget Men's Store. The record shows that Michael's involvement with the store was quite limited: He only performed some accounting and tax returns for the store and attended its annual meeting. We cannot say, therefore, that Christina met her burden of proof on the element of marital contribution for the Nugget Men's Store. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court's determination that the Nugget Men's Store is Michael's separate property.....

Questions:

1. What does the court say the basic distinction is between separate and marital property?
2. Why did the trial court hold that the two businesses remained the separate property of the husband?
3. Why does the court discuss the concepts of appreciation and transmutation - why are they relevant?
4. As discussed by the court, what is the key difference between these two concepts?
5. What does the court conclude with respect to Schmitz \& Buck? With respect to Nugget's Men's Store? Why is the result different?
6. What is a "secondary" asset?
7. Explain what the court means by "tracing"?
8. What does the court conclude with respect to the bank accounts? Why?