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 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 earnings from rental properties, and acquired $1500 per 30 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 beneficial 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 performed by the spouse. The husband’s brother repaired the inspiration and ground. 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 not less than $179,000 of his separate funds, though the spouse referred to as this determine exhausting 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 finally closed.
They separated shortly thereafter, with the spouse claiming that the husband regularly screamed at her and she or he was afraid.
The trial courtroom 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 Courtroom 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 courtroom 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 courtroom agreed that the respective contributions of the spouses was an essential issue. Because the husband contributed “way more” to the home worth than the spouse, the appeals courtroom agreed that the decrease courtroom acted correctly.
It reviewed the financial contributions of every partner and agreed with the decrease courtroom’s findings. The spouse pointed to her numerous hours of cleansing and repairing, however the courtroom identified that it is a much less essential consider short-term marriages. For these causes, the appeals courtroom affirmed the property division. It additionally affirmed the decrease courtroom’s denial of lawyer charges.
No. W2021-01227-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 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?