the trial court erroneously classified property as marital when in fact it was non-marital, the question becomes what relief, if any, this court ought to grant. “The erroneous characterization of property requires reversal of the order dividing marital property if the error materially impacts the overall distribution of the marital property.” Halupa v. Halupa, 943 S.W.2d 272, 278 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). Here, by our calculation, the difference in the calculation is roughly five thousand dollars. The trial court awarded to each party a percentage of the property based on their respective contributions. The trial court was free to conclude that Wife was entitled to a share of the value of the home due to her significant contributions. Moritz v. Moritz, 844 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Mo.App. W.D.1992)(<HOLDING>). Because the property was not transmuted, it
holding that a nonowning spouse is entitled to some benefit when marital funds are used to improve nonmarital property holding that a trial court may find that a nonowning spouse is entitled to some benefit by reason of marital funds having been used to pay off debts on the owning spouses nonmarital property holding that home purchased with separate funds and titled in one spouses name was transmuted into marital property because home was used as marital residence and the other spouse contributed to payments and repairs on home holding that clear language in one portion of a later may cause ambiguity in another portion to dissipate holding that one spouse may be entitled to a portion of the equity in home purchased with nonmarital funds