Wife Gets Half of Secret Day Trading Account Despite Claim Girlfriend Was Co-Owner
Tennessee case summary on asset valuation and division in divorce.
Meredith Lee Taylor v. Christopher Bryan Taylor
On appeal, the father argued the account was owned jointly with his girlfriend, and that only his interest should have been considered.
The parties in this Lincoln County, Tennessee case were married in 2007 and had one son, who was born in 2016. When the wife learned that the husband was having an affair, she filed for divorce in 2020. The net marital estate was divided almost equally, and the permanent parenting plan called for the mother to be primary residential parent, with 235 days per year parenting time. The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Among the assets was a secret day trading account maintained by the father, valued at $20,000. He did not include this account in interrogatories, and was evasive when asked about the omission. The court awarded this account to the father, but awarded the mother $10,000 for her share. On appeal, the father argued that the valuation was incorrect. He also argued that the account was owned jointly with his girlfriend, and that only his interest should have been considered. But upon examining the evidence, the appeals court found no error with the lower court’s ruling. The father also quibbled as to the value of his vehicle, but the appeals court found that the lower court had pegged its value properly. It also affirmed the disposition to the mother of a ring which had belonged to the father’s grandmother. They had put it in a new setting and it was given to the mother. The appeals court agreed that the ring was a gift to the mother.
The father also argued that he should have received more parenting time. The appeals court first pointed out that it doesn’t normally second guess the trial court, since the ruling often hinges on subtle factors such as demeanor and credibility. The trial court had applied the statutory factors, and the appeals court could find no reason to reverse the ruling.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and assessed the costs of appeal against the father.
No. M2022-00140-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2023).
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?
