With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the trust’s possession. By the terms of the stock-purchase agreement, respondent is entitled, and has consistently chosen, to surrender the shares held as security in order to meet her obligations under the note, effectively using the stock to pay for itself. We conclude that because the promissory note was secured wholly by respondent’s non-marital remainder interest in the QTIP and involved no personal or marital assets, it was not a marital debt. Consequently, the QTIP stock acquired by respondent pursuant to the stock-purchase transaction was not marital property. We have previously held that an estate-planning device designed to minimize tax burdens does not alter the marital or nonmarital character of property. See Pfleiderer v. Pfleiderer, 591 N.W.2d 729, 732-33 (Minn.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). Here, the stock-purchase transaction was

A: holding that transferring joint property into one partys name for estate planning purposes does not convert marital property into nonmarital property
B: holding that devise of real estate to one spouse was nonmarital and noting that had testator intended such property to be devised as marital property he could have designated appellant as a joint tenant
C: holding that an increase in the value of nonmarital property attributable to the efforts of one or both spouses during marriage is marital property
D: holding money received from inheritance as nonmarital property presumptively became marital property when placed in joint account under arkansas law
A.