Tennessee case abstract on transmutation of property in divorce.
The husband and spouse on this Cumberland County, Tennessee, case had been married in 2014 and had one baby earlier than they each filed for divorce in 2017. In December of that yr, the spouse was granted short-term possession of the house and each events had been awarded equal parenting time. For the reason that common choose was not current in courtroom on the time of trial, the matter was heard by legal professional Brett A. York, appearing as a particular choose.
The events owned two homes, one in every of which was owned by the spouse previous to the wedding. Throughout the marriage, she had put it in each of their names. The courtroom held that the home had transmuted into marital property resulting from the way it was titled, and the substantial contributions by the husband through the marriage. After different points had been determined, the spouse appealed to the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals. She first argued that the particular choose lacked authority. She additionally argued that the property shouldn’t have been transmuted. As a substitute, she argued, the home ought to have been her separate property.
The appeals courtroom first turned to the problem of the particular choose’s authority. A Tennessee statute governs the appointment of a particular choose within the case of a choose’s absence. Usually, this ought to be one other choose or a retired choose, but when a kind of individuals shouldn’t be out there, it may be a lawyer on an inventory beforehand authorised by the judges of the county.
On this case, the appeals courtroom discovered that the spouse had not objected previous to the enchantment. Because of this, the problem was waived, and the appeals courtroom as a substitute turned to the transmutation situation.
The spouse argued that her funds had been used to pay for renovations. Nevertheless, the husband testified as to the bodily labor he had carried out on the property. As well as, the appeals courtroom famous that when property is titled in each names, there’s a presumption that it was a present to the marital property. On this case, the spouse had not rebutted this presumption, the appeals courtroom held. After reviewing the proof, the appeals courtroom agreed that the property was correctly thought-about to be marital.
The courtroom additionally reviewed different elements of each the property division and parenting preparations, and located no error in how the decrease courtroom had decided these points.
For these causes, the Courtroom of Appeals affirmed the decrease courtroom’s judgment.
No. E2019-01660-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 29, 2020).
See authentic opinion for actual language. Authorized citations omitted.
To be taught extra, see Transmutation in Tennessee Property Division Divorce Law.