Though Residence in Husband’s Name, It’s Marital Property

The husband and wife in this Montgomery County, Tennessee, case were married in 2008 and had one child.  The husband had two businesses prior to and during the marriage, a bail bonding company and a construction company.

Until 2015, the mother was primarily a stay-at-home mom, but in 2015, the parties started a company relating to the wife’s being a licensed esthetician.

The parties lived in a house held in the husband’s name, with a value of $679,000, and about $179,000 remaining on the mortgage.

The trial court, Judge Kathryn Wall Olita, held that the marital residence had transmuted into marital property.  Ultimately, the wife was awarded the property.

Trial was held in 2023.  In addition to the ruling on the house, the wife was awarded transitional alimony of $2000 per month, plus an award for attorney’s fees.  The husband brought an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The husband first argued that the trial court had erred in treating the house as marital property.  The trial court had based its ruling first on the grounds that the property was used as a marital residence.  In particular, the wife testified that they looked for properties together after she discovered she was pregnant, at which time they became engaged.  They moved into the house in April 2008, and were married in August of the same year.  The trial court also noted that both parties executed a Deed of Trust, even though only the husband signed the accompanying promissory note.

The appeals court agreed with the lower court, despite the husband’s contention that the two maintained separate financial lives.  He asserted that earnings from his business were used to purchase and maintain the property.  But both courts noted that intangible contributions must be considered, and that the wife was a stay-at-home mom during this time.  Ultimately, the Court of Appeals held that the evidence supported the lower court’s findings and affirmed.

At trial, the husband had offered into evidence summaries of the wife’s financial records, and argued that they should have been admitted under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 1006, which allows summaries of voluminous documents which can’t be conveniently examined in court.  The lower court did not allow the records in evidence, and the Court of Appeals held that this ruling was within the lower court’s discretion.

The lower court had made some contempt rulings, and the Court of Appeals addressed these before turning to the alimony issue.

The Court of Appeals noted, and the husband conceded, that the wife was the economically disadvantaged spouse.  It ultimately held that an award of transitional alimony was appropriate in order to allow the wife to adjust to her new economic realities.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, and included an award of fees on appeal.  For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, and remanded the case for computation of alimony.

No. M2023-00879-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2024).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee, and our video, How is alimony decided in Tennessee?

To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce and view our video Is Tennessee a 50 50 divorce state?