the marriage, before the date of separation, and is presently owned. If the party meets this burden, then the burden shifts to the party claiming the property to be separate to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property meets the definition of separate property. If both parties meet their burdens, the property is considered separate. Ross I, supra (citing Lilly v. Lilly, 107 N.C. App. 484, 486, 420 S.E.2d 492, 493 (1992), and Ciobanu v. Ciobanu, 104 N.C. App. 461, 466, 409 S.E.2d 749, 752 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We have also held that financial contributions made during marriage which reduce a mortgage are active increases in equity and shall, therefore, be treated as marital property. Rice v. Rice, 159 N.C. App. 487, 497, 582, S.E.2d 317, 324 (2003) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the only evidence regarding the
holding that a nonowning spouse is entitled to some benefit when marital funds are used to improve nonmarital property holding that there is no difference between financial contributions to reduce the mortgage principal and those to improve the property itself and that both types of active contributions entitle the marital estate to a proportionate return on its investment holding trial court had no authority to award portion of the marital property to wifes children from another marriage even though money they received by way of social security benefits were commingled with the marital estate and used in part for the aequisition of marital property holding compelled contributions in beef promotion violated first amendment holding that limits on contributions to political committees which advocate the views and candidacies of a number of candidates induce no greater first amendment scrutiny than limits on contributions to an individual candidate