Hanover v. Hanover, 775 S.W.2nd 612 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

Items to Spouse Throughout Marriage Are Her Separate Property

On this 1989 case, after 31 years of marriage, the husband was granted a divorce on the grounds of merciless and inhuman remedy.  Amongst different points, the spouse argued that many items of non-public property have been her particular person property, and that the trial court docket had improperly thought of them to be a part of the marital property.

She provided into proof a listing of the objects claimed to be her particular person property.  The sources of all of these things have been recognized.  Some had been items from the husband, with an outline similar to “Mom’s Day reward” from the husband.  Others have been items to her from third events, with an outline similar to “reward from Aunt Dolly for birthday.”

The husband admitted to creating such items, and agreed, within the case of bijou, that the reward was designed for the spouse.  The appeals court docket famous that the definition of separate property included items, and that there was nothing within the statute to exclude interspousal items from that definition.  It additionally famous that three parts are essential to make a present, specifically, intention to make a present, supply, and acceptance.  On this case, there was no dispute as to supply and acceptance, however the husband argued that the requisite intent was lacking.

The appeals court docket agreed with the spouse that the proof preponderated in favor of a discovering that the husband supposed to make a present.  The husband argued that the couple had lived past their means, and that the funds for the purchases of those items got here from loans from his enterprise, which had been mentioned extensively earlier within the opinion.  However the court docket held this issue to be irrelevant:  “Just because the day of reckoning for the extravagance is at hand, we is not going to infer that Mr. Hanover didn’t intend to make a present of all of the objects attributed to him.” Id. at 617.  For that cause, it held that the objects have been certainly the spouse’s separate property.

After reviewing the opposite points within the case, the Courtroom of Appeals modified the ruling of the trial court docket, awarding these separate objects to the spouse.

This put up is a part of a sequence, Appreciation of Separate Property: The Forensic Accountant’s Full Employment Act.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here