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 less than 4 years and had no youngsters 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.
Essentially 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 identify, however the mortgage was taken out collectively. The home wanted a whole lot of work, a lot of which was carried out by the spouse. The husband’s brother repaired the inspiration 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 mentioned that he paid at the least $179,000 of his separate funds, though the spouse known as this determine arduous to imagine.
Concerning the time they moved into this home, the spouse operated a restaurant, and the husband purchased $8000 price of apparatus 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 ultimately closed.
They separated shortly thereafter, with the spouse claiming that the husband regularly screamed at her and she or he 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 likewise 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 likewise that she ought to have been awarded lawyer’s charges. She identified that she acquired solely 13% of the house’s worth, and she or he was entitled to half.
The decrease court docket had centered 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 necessary issue. For the reason that husband contributed “much 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 necessary consider short-term marriages. For these causes, the appeals court docket affirmed the property division. It additionally affirmed the decrease court docket’s denial of lawyer charges.
No. W2021-01227-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2023).
See unique opinion for precise language. Authorized citations omitted.
To be taught extra, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce and think about our video Is Tennessee a 50 50 divorce state?