| | + | {{cquote|In this case, the trial court's judgment found the frozen pre-embryos are marital property of a special character, awarded the frozen pre-embryos to Gadberry and McQueen jointly, and ordered that "no transfer, release, or use of the frozen [pre-]embryos shall occur without the signed authorization of both [Gadberry] and [McQueen]." As the main part of this ruling pertains to the parties' decision-making authority over the frozen pre-embryos created subsequent to their marriage, including but not limited to when they can exercise rights to use them, it is consistent with the broad definitions of "marital property" and "property" set out above. See Witten, 672 N.W.2d at 771, 776 and Kass v. Kass, 91 N.Y.2d 554, 696 N.E.2d 174, 175, 179, 673 N.Y.S.2d 350 (N.Y. 1998) (indicating that the issue in cases involving the disposition of frozen pre-embryos is determining the parties' decision-making authority over them); In re Marriage of Dahl and Angle, 222 Ore. App. 572, 194 P.3d 834, 838 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) (finding a similar definition of "property" to be "broad" and encompass rights relating to the disposition of frozen pre-embryos). And to the extent the trial court's judgment denominates the frozen pre-embryos as marital property of a "special character" and essentially provides the frozen pre-embryos are to remain in their status quo of being cryogenically preserved and stored until the parties both agree in writing as to another disposition, the judgment is consistent with the principle that frozen pre-embryos are entitled to a special respect. Therefore, we hold the trial court did not err in classifying the frozen pre-embryos as marital property of a special character.}} |