Tennessee case abstract on property division classification and transmutation in divorce.
The husband and spouse on this Montgomery County, Tennessee, case had been married in 1986. The spouse filed for divorce in 2017, and the case went to trial earlier than Decide Ted A. Crozier late that 12 months. After a post-trial movement, the spouse appealed to the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals. She argued that the decrease courtroom had erred in classifying industrial property as marital.
There have been two adjoining parcels that had been conveyed to the spouse by her mom in 2002. In response to the spouse, solely one of many parcels was bought. The opposite one, she alleged, was given as a present. After receiving the property, the spouse operated her cosmetology enterprise there. The husband argued that the acquisition value, $25,000, was for each parcels, and that neither of them was a present. He additionally alleged that marital belongings had been used for the maintenance of the properties.
The appeals courtroom started its assessment of the case by noting that one of many parcels was conveyed by guarantee deed, with a purchase order value of $25,000 listed. The alleged reward was, nonetheless, conveyed by stop declare deed, and said that the consideration was $0.
The husband identified that there was a mortgage secured by each properties for the acquisition cash. Nevertheless, the appeals courtroom held that this issue alone didn’t help the declare that the property was marital.
The appeals courtroom held that the totally different therapy of the 2 parcels made clear that one in all them was a present.
This didn’t finish the case, nonetheless, because the appeals courtroom subsequent turned to the problem of transmutation. The husband argued that comingled funds had been used over time to take care of the property and pay taxes. The spouse testified that enterprise earnings from her enterprise was used, however the appeals courtroom identified that she failed to supply data exhibiting this. Due to this fact, the appeals courtroom agreed with the decrease courtroom that the property was marital, on the grounds of transmutation.
For these causes, the Courtroom of Appeals affirmed the decrease courtroom’s ruling and taxed the prices of enchantment in opposition to the spouse.
No. M2018-02251-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2020).
See authentic opinion for precise language. Authorized citations omitted.
To be taught extra, see Transmutation in Tennessee Property Division Divorce Law.