Even though the residence is in the husband’s name, it’s marital property
Tennessee case summary on alimony, property division and classification, and Rule of Evidence 1006 in divorce.
Marital residence was marital property, even though titled in husband’s name.
Laura Michael Hudson v. Steven Brian Hudson
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. The wife was also awarded $2000 per month in transitional alimony, as well as attorney’s fees. The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The first argument made by the husband was that the trial judge had erred when it treated the house as marital. The trial court based its decision on the fact that the house was used as a residence for a married couple. The wife specifically testified that she and her husband looked for properties after she found out she was pregnant. They then got engaged. The couple moved into the home in April 2008 and were married in the following August. The lower court agreed, despite the husband’s claim that they had separate financial lives. He claimed that the earnings from his business had been used to buy and maintain the property. Both courts agreed that the wife’s intangible contribution must be taken into account, and that she was a stay at home mom during that time. The husband offered summaries of his wife’s financial records as evidence at trial. He argued that Tennessee Rule of Evidence 1006 allowed summaries of voluminous documentation that can’t be easily 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. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision and remanded it to the lower court for alimony computation.
