Home Marital Property Regardless of Bought w/ Husband’s Funds

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 had 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 grew to become an insurance coverage salesman.  The spouse had labored in medical know-how for a lot 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 had been in a position to comply with plenty of property points.

The trial court docket 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 legal professional charges.  The husband was awarded two rental properties, and the spouse was given parts of the husband’s IRA accounts.  After varied post-trial motions, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals.  The husband argued that the property division was flawed.  Particularly, 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 assessment, the appeals court docket turned to the classification of the marital residence.  The husband argued that for the reason that property was bought along with his separate property, it ought to have been deemed separate property.

The trial court docket had relied upon a rebuttable presumption {that a} marital residence bought through the marriage is marital property.  The appeals court docket 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 along with her funds.   For these causes, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed the decrease court docket’s ruling on this level.

The court docket then turned to the general distribution of the property, below which the husband had obtained about 40.5%, and the spouse 59.5%.  The appeals court docket did make a modification, for the reason that decrease court docket had mis-valued the spouse’s checking account by about $4000.  However after reviewing the general cut up of the property, the appeals court docket concluded that the decrease court docket had acted correctly.

For these causes, aside from the one modification, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed the decrease court docket’s ruling.

No. W2022-00728-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2023).

See authentic opinion for actual language.  Authorized citations omitted.

To study extra, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce and examine our video Is Tennessee a 50 50 divorce state?

To study extra, see Transmutation in Tennessee Property Division Divorce Regulation.