Marital vs Separate Property Tracing Table
When a client claims an inheritance, premarital account, gift or premarital home equity is separate property, and you need to see whether the paper trail supports the claim before disclosures, negotiation or expert retention.
Separate-property claims are won or lost on paper. A client may be certain that the house down payment came from an inheritance or that a brokerage account predates the marriage, but the court will want to see the money move, statement by statement, and will want to know whether marital income ever went into the same account. Building that trail by hand from years of statements is slow, and the gaps are easy to miss until the other side finds them.
This prompt builds a working tracing table from the statements you paste and the client's account of where each asset came from. For every claimed asset, Claude lists each acquisition, deposit, withdrawal, transfer and title change with the amount, the source of funds and a pinpoint statement citation. It then lists commingling events, proposes a characterization with its assumptions stated, identifies missing statements and undocumented deposits, and notes where the client's story and the documents disagree. It pairs well with a financial-disclosure review.
Characterization rules, presumptions and accepted tracing methods vary considerably between community property and equitable distribution states, and between courts. The prompt frames those as questions for you to research rather than applying any rule as settled. Complex accounts may need a forensic accountant. Verify every figure against the statement, and treat the table as a draft for attorney review.
The Prompt
I represent [CLIENT NAME] in a divorce in [JURISDICTION]. The property regime is [STATE PROPERTY REGIME: community property / equitable distribution / other]. Date of marriage: [DATE]. Date of separation or other cutoff date used in [JURISDICTION]: [DATE]. My client claims the following assets are wholly or partly separate property: [LIST]. <document name="statements"> [PASTE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS, CLOSING STATEMENTS, GIFT OR INHERITANCE RECORDS, LOAN DOCUMENTS. Label each with an ID like STMT-01] </document> <document name="client_history"> [PASTE THE CLIENT'S ACCOUNT OF WHERE EACH ASSET CAME FROM] </document> Build a tracing analysis: 1. Tracing table for each claimed asset: Date | Event (acquisition, deposit, withdrawal, transfer, refinance, title change) | Amount | Source of funds as shown in the documents | Account or asset | Statement ID and page | Running balance or equity if shown. 2. Commingling events: every point where funds claimed as separate were mixed with funds earned or acquired during the marriage, or where title changed, with the statement cited. 3. Proposed characterization for each asset or portion: Separate / Marital or community / Mixed / Cannot determine. Explain the basis in two or three sentences, cite the statements, and state the assumption you are making. Do not apply a specific tracing method or presumption as settled law; name the legal questions I need to check under [JURISDICTION]. 4. Documentation gaps that weaken the separate-property claim: missing statements by date range, undocumented deposits, and points where the trail depends only on the client's account. 5. Discrepancies between the client's history and the documents. Every number must come from a cited statement. If a figure is not in the documents, write "not documented." This is a draft for attorney review; characterizations and any rule of law must be verified, and complex tracing may need a forensic accountant.
Example Output
A statement-cited tracing table for each claimed asset, a list of commingling events, proposed characterizations with stated assumptions, and the documentation gaps that weaken the claim.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
PROPERTY TRACING ANALYSIS (DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW) Client: Rosalind Mavuso | Regime: [STATE PROPERTY REGIME] | Marriage: 06/2015 | Cutoff: [DATE] Claimed separate asset: Inheritance from aunt, used toward residence 1. TRACING TABLE Date | Event | Amount | Source | Account | Cite 03/12/2017 | Deposit | $85,000.00 | Estate distribution check, "Estate of L. Mavuso" | Savings ...4410 (client sole name) | STMT-03 p.1; ESTATE-01 03/12/2017 | Balance after deposit | $91,226.18 | n/a | Savings ...4410 | STMT-03 p.1 04/01/2017 | Payroll deposit | $3,140.55 | Client's employer | Savings ...4410 | STMT-04 p.1 05/19/2017 | Withdrawal to title company | $80,000.00 | Savings ...4410 | Savings ...4410 | STMT-05 p.2; CLOSING-01 p.3 05/19/2017 | Residence acquired | n/a | Title: "R. Mavuso and D. Mavuso, husband and wife" | Residence | DEED-01 2. COMMINGLING EVENTS - 04/01/2017: payroll deposited into savings holding inheritance funds (STMT-04). - 05/19/2017: residence titled jointly (DEED-01). 3. PROPOSED CHARACTERIZATION Residence down payment ($80,000): Mixed / Cannot determine. Statements show the inheritance deposit and a later withdrawal from the same account, but marital earnings entered the account in between. Assumption: the account held $6,226.18 of pre-existing funds of unknown character. Questions to check under [JURISDICTION]: tracing method accepted for commingled accounts; effect of joint titling on a separate contribution; whether reimbursement applies. 4. DOCUMENTATION GAPS - No statement for savings ...4410 before 03/2017; character of the $6,226.18 is undocumented. - Will or estate accounting showing the bequest ran to the client alone not provided; only the distribution check (ESTATE-01). 5. DISCREPANCIES - Client history: "I put the whole inheritance into the house." Statements show $80,000 of $85,000 withdrawn.
Tips
- •Label every statement with an ID before pasting. A tracing table without pinpoint citations is not usable in negotiation or court.
- •Paste statements in date order and include the months around each key event; gaps around a deposit are where tracing claims fail.
- •Use the gaps section to build your subpoena or document request list before the other side points them out.
- •For large or heavily commingled accounts, use the table to scope work for a forensic accountant rather than as a final tracing.
- •Treat characterizations as a draft for attorney review and verify the governing rules and any citations under your jurisdiction's law.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Claude apply my state's tracing rules?
The prompt tells it not to treat any rule as settled. Tracing methods, presumptions about commingled funds and the effect of retitling vary by state and sometimes by court. Claude organizes the facts, states the assumption behind each characterization and lists the legal questions. You research the governing rules and decide how they apply.
Can this replace a forensic accountant?
For simple claims, such as a single inheritance deposited into a clean account, the table may be enough to support negotiation. For heavily commingled accounts, business interests or large sums, use it to scope and organize the work for a forensic accountant, who can testify to the methodology. The gaps list helps you request the right records early.
What if the client's story does not match the statements?
That is one of the most useful outputs. The discrepancies section shows where the client's recollection and the paper trail diverge, so you can raise it with the client before a deposition or disclosure deadline. It is far better to adjust the claim now than to have the other side reveal the mismatch.
How do I protect the financial records I paste?
Redact full account numbers and identifiers that are not needed for tracing; the last four digits are usually enough. Follow ABA Model Rule 1.6, any protective order in the case and your firm's AI policy, and use a Claude plan with appropriate data protections for confidential financial information.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.