marital property is presumptively reasonable, but that the presumption may be rebutted by evi-denee of various factors, including whether the property .was obtained by one spouse "through inheritance or gift." Here, Terry inherited the stock and IRA after he had already moved out of the marital residence. He was in possession of the inheritance for only a few months of the parties' marriage that lasted over thirty years. The inheritance was not commingled with any marital assets, and Deborah contributed nothing to its acquisition, directly or indirectly. Given these facts, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in deviating from an equal division of property in order to "set aside" the 244 shares of stock and IRA exclusively to Terry. See Castaneda, 615 N.E.2d at 470-71 (<HOLDING>). We affirm the division of the marital
holding trial court did not abuse discretion in setting aside inheritance exclusively to wife where it was kept in wifes name separate from husband and husband did nothing to contribute to the accumulation of the funds which were not treated as marital property or commingled with other marital assets 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 that husband and wifes failure to recite marital status in the deed did not defeat tenancy by the entirety holding that the trial court erred in finding that marital property was the former wifes separate property based on a nonseparation agreement in which the former husband purported to relinquish any interest in the marital property holding that furniture and furnishings for marital residence purchased with separate funds were transmuted into marital property because they were acquired and treated as communal property