Interest in a Gifted Family Partnership is Separate Property

Tennessee case summary on property classification in divorce.

Husband’s interested in gifted family partnership was separate property.

Katherine Poling Robeson v. Travis Wilson Robeson

The husband and wife in this Williamson County, Tennessee case were married in 2004. The husband was a realtor who specialized in farmland, and the wife was a stay-at-home mom for most of the marriage.

About nine months before the marriage, the husband’s father purchased 200 acres, and allowed the husband to purchase fifty acres of that parcel. The husband and wife built a cabin during the marriage, believing it to be on the husband’s property. The father started a limited company during the marriage and the husband’s sister was the beneficiary of a trust that owned a 98% stake. The husband managed leases on the property held by that partnership.

In 2020, the wife filed for divorce, and the case went to trial in 2022. The parties settled the parenting issues but there was a disagreement over the classification of certain assets, namely the 7.6-acre cabin property and the husband’s share in the partnership. The lower court ruled that both assets were marital. After final rulings in the case, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

After addressing questions of the husband’s income, the court moved to the issue of the property classification. It

noted first that property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be marital property, but this rule generally does not apply if it was by gift or inheritance.The Court of Appeals looked first at the partnership interest. The husband testified he thought the interest was a present, but it must be determined by the totality circumstances. The appeals court found that it was significant that the husband had an interest equal to his sister’s. In previous cases, gifts to multiple children were deemed separate property and not marital. The Court of Appeals ruled that the wife had not made a substantial contribution to the property. It remained separate property.

The court of appeals then turned to the cabin. In this case, the appeals court agreed with lower court that the cabin was marital property. The lower court determined that the cabin was intended to be a marital residence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision in this part.After addressing alimony issues and attorney fees, the Court of Appeals affirmed and reversed parts.