In Burnside v. Burnside, 194 W.Va. 263, 270, 460 S.E.2d 264, 271 (1995), the Court expanded upon Whiting by providing an extensive analysis regarding the type of evidence that is sufficient to rebut the presumption. In Burnside, this Court was asked to determine whether the family law master and circuit court erred by finding that Mrs. Burnside had made a contribution to the marital estate when she used separate funds she had inherited to payoff the parties' mortgage on the marital home. The Court concluded that while both the family law master and circuit court had made a finding that Mrs. Burnside did not prove she was under "coercion, duress, or deception" when she paid off the mortgage, they failed to make a specific finding regarding Mrs. Burnside's "intent" to make a gift. Accordingly, the case was remanded for further consideration of the intent aspect of the presumption with guidance as to what type of evidence would be sufficient to rebut the presumption that a gift had been made to the martial estate.