which of such property is separate property, which is marital property, and which is part separate and part marital property in accordance with subdivision A3.... The court shall determine the value of any such property as of the date of the evidentiary hearing on the evaluation issue. Code § 20-107.3(A) (emphasis added). Considering the separate subsections of Code § 20-107.3 together, we hold that when ordering reimbursement of contributed separate property under subsection (A)(3)(g), a court shall determine the value of the contributed property as of the date of the evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Oraee v. Breeding, 270 Va. 488, 498, 621 S.E.2d 48, 53 (2005) (construing together subsections A and B of Code § 8.01-581.18); Hart v. Hart, 27 Va.App. 46, 66, 497 S.E.2d 496, 505 (1998) (<HOLDING>). This interpretation makes good sense because
holding that a defendant in an action to redeem property from a tax sale was barred from asserting on remand a counterclaim for the value of improvements made to the property holding the aggregate value of the land and its improvements is the controlling value holding that an increase in the value of nonmarital property attributable to the efforts of one or both spouses during marriage is marital property holding that in determining the value of a partys nonmarital contribution to hybrid property under code  201073a3 the important factor is the value that improvements add to the property not their cost holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition