Marital Residence Was Marital Property, Even Though Titled in Husband’s Name
The trial court held that the wife had contributed substantially to the residence, more than $100,000 to this property.
Tennessee case summary on property classification in divorce.
Sarah Elizabeth Parker v. Kenton Stone Parker
The husband and wife in this Sullivan County, Tennessee, case began residing together in 2005 and were married in 2009. They had two children before filing for divorce in 2020.
While living together, but before their marriage, the parties purchased a home in Kingsport, TN. The wife had heavy student loan debt, and for that reason, the property was titled solely in the husband’s name.
The wife testified at trial that she had contributed $20,000 to the property, from the sale of a house she had inherited in 2014. She also testified that she contributed the $20,000 proceeds of a wrongful termination lawsuit. Finally, she alleged that she paid off an additional $20,000 in credit card debt arising out of transactions relating to the property. She also produced receipts for about $6000, and alleged that she contributed sweat equity.
At the time of trial, the property was worth $442,000 with a $48,000 mortgage.
Prior to the marriage, the husband also purchased a 50% interest in another property. The wife alleged that marital funds were used for taxes and upkeep, but the husband disputed this assertion.
The trial court held that the wife had contributed substantially to the residence, more than $100,000 to this property. It also held that the wife was entitled to judgment against the husband for $12,000, which was half the amount the husband had used from marital funds for the other property.
The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. He first alleged that the residence had not properly become marital property. He also disputed the $12,000 judgment.
The appeals court first noted that separate property can become marital through the doctrines of transmutation and commingling. The title, which was in the husband’s name, is not controlling. Instead, it is the intention of the parties that controls.
In addressing this issue, the appeals court first noted that the property had been the marital residence. It also noted that the wife had made “substantial contributions” to the property. In addition to the direct contributions, the wife’s status as homemaker is a factor to consider. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the lower court was correct in its determination.
The court then turned to the $12,000 judgment, and agreed that about $25,000 in marital funds had been used on the other property, and an award of half of that amount was proper.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment.
No. E2022-00644-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2024).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce and view our video Is Tennessee a 50 50 divorce state?
