With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". opinion on remand that the superior court may have implicitly adjusted upward the valuation of the marital estate by the amount of the post-trial appreciation in the Snowy Owl property. (The superior court there stated that, “one solution is to re-divide the marital assets and give Kevin more of those assets, which primarily is the [Snowy Owl] house.") There is no indication that the superior court adjusted the valuation of any of the other assets comprising the marital estate to account for any post-trial appreciation. To the extent that the appreciation of the Snowy Owl property is attributable to Wendy’s post-trial expenditures of effort or money, it would be error to increase the valuation of the marital estate. See, e.g., Bousquet v. Bousquet, 731 P.2d 1211, 1214 (Alaska 1987) (<HOLDING>); Foster v. Foster 883 P.2d 397, 399 (Alaska

A: holding that separate property may become marital property if spouse donates it to marital unit with intent at time of donation that property become marital
B: holding that assets acquired subsequent to separation are not considered marital property absent evidence that spouse used marital property to obtain them
C: holding that separate property valued at 45000 was transmuted to marital property when improved by 3800 of marital property
D: holding that circuit court erred in failing to consider that marital property in the form of marital earnings was used to pay debt against nonmarital property
B.