Tennessee case abstract on property classification in divorce.
Joe Riley Prichard v. Rhonda Kay Prichard
The husband and spouse on this Dyer County, Tennessee, case have been married in 2006 and had one little one. The husband had labored since a younger age at Caterpillar, however when the plant shut down, he turned an insurance coverage salesman. The spouse had labored in medical know-how for many of the marriage, however had been laid off and was working as a instructor’s assistant.
In 2020, the husband filed for divorce, and the spouse filed a counter-petition. Every partner alleged inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable variations. The spouse later alleged adultery. Trial was held in 2022. The events have been capable of comply with a lot of property points.
The trial courtroom discovered that the husband had engaged in adultery and inappropriate marital conduct. The marital residence was categorized as marital property, and was awarded to the spouse. The husband was ordered to pay transitional alimony, however not the spouse’s lawyer charges. The husband was awarded two rental properties, and the spouse was given parts of the husband’s IRA accounts. After numerous post-trial motions, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals. The husband argued that the property division was flawed. Specifically, he argued that he wasn’t given correct credit score for his use of separate funds to buy the marital residence.
After stating the usual of evaluate, the appeals courtroom turned to the classification of the marital residence. The husband argued that because the property was bought together with his separate property, it ought to have been deemed separate property.
The trial courtroom had relied upon a rebuttable presumption {that a} marital residence bought through the marriage is marital property. The appeals courtroom held that this presumption was not rebutted. It pointed to the truth that the intention was to make use of the property as a marital residence. The events shared in prices of enhancements, and the spouse paid utility payments together with her funds. For these causes, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed the decrease courtroom’s ruling on this level.
The courtroom then turned to the general distribution of the property, below which the husband had acquired about 40.5%, and the spouse 59.5%. The appeals courtroom did make a modification, because the decrease courtroom had mis-valued the spouse’s checking account by about $4000. However after reviewing the general break up of the property, the appeals courtroom concluded that the decrease courtroom had acted correctly.
For these causes, apart from the one modification, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed the decrease courtroom’s ruling.
No. W2022-00728-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2023).
See authentic opinion for precise language. Authorized citations omitted.
To be taught extra, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce and look at our video Is Tennessee a 50 50 divorce state?
To be taught extra, see Transmutation in Tennessee Property Division Divorce Regulation.
