Tennessee case abstract on property division in a short-term marriage and divorce.
The husband and spouse on this Dyer County, Tennessee, case have been married for under 4 years and had no kids when the spouse filed for divorce. When the case got here to trial, the husband was 71, and the spouse, 55. The husband was a retired contractor. He had a small month-to-month revenue from rental properties, and acquired $1500 per thirty days from social safety. The spouse labored as a welder and earned $17.75 per hour. She additionally labored at an assisted dwelling facility and earned $10 per hour. She took care of the funds, and deposited her paycheck into the husband’s rental account. She paid the payments out of that account.
Probably the most precious asset was their residence, which was appraised at $210,000, with a $69,000 mortgage. The title was within the husband’s title, however the mortgage was taken out collectively. The home wanted a whole lot of work, a lot of which was completed by the spouse. The husband’s brother repaired the muse and flooring. The brother valued the work at $40,000, however the husband paid $12,000.
The spouse contributed $30,000 from the sale of her former residence. The husband stated that he paid no less than $179,000 of his separate funds, though the spouse referred to as this determine onerous to consider.
In regards to the time they moved into this home, the spouse operated a restaurant, and the husband purchased $8000 price of kit to replace the kitchen. The husband claimed that the spouse additionally withdrew $31,000 to maintain it afloat, though it by no means made a revenue and finally closed.
They separated shortly thereafter, with the spouse claiming that the husband frequently screamed at her and he or she was afraid.
The trial court docket dominated that the house was marital property with fairness of about $140,000. It awarded the property to the husband, who assumed the debt and in addition needed to pay the spouse $18,000 for her share of the fairness.
The spouse appealed to the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals. She argued that the division of property was inequitable, and in addition that she ought to have been awarded legal professional’s charges. She identified that she acquired solely 13% of the house’s worth, and he or she was entitled to half.
The decrease court docket had targeted on the truth that this was a brief marriage, and that the husband had introduced extra belongings than the spouse. In a short-term marriage, the appeals court docket agreed that the respective contributions of the spouses was an essential issue. For the reason that husband contributed “way more” to the home worth than the spouse, the appeals court docket agreed that the decrease court docket acted correctly.
It reviewed the financial contributions of every partner and agreed with the decrease court docket’s findings. The spouse pointed to her numerous hours of cleansing and repairing, however the court docket identified that this can be a much less essential think about short-term marriages. For these causes, the appeals court docket affirmed the property division. It additionally affirmed the decrease court docket’s denial of legal professional charges.
No. W2021-01227-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2023).
See authentic opinion for actual language. Authorized citations omitted.
To study extra, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce and look at our video Is Tennessee a 50 50 divorce state?