TN Couple’s Extensive Real Estate Held To Be Marital Property

Tennessee case summary on divorce valuation and special master.

Timothy James Hardin v. Veronica Hensley-Hardin

The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case were married in 1992 and had four children, one of whom died during the marriage.  The husband owned and operated a heating and air conditioning business, and the wife worked for a school system.

One of their assets was a partnership which owned real property, some of which were inherited from the wife’s family.  Both parties filed for divorce in 2010, and the case was referred to a special master.  A primary issue was the nature and value of the partnership.  It owned property appraised at approximately $7.7 million.

The special master concluded that the partnership was marital property because it was acquired during the marriage and primarily by means other than inheritance or gift.  This recommendation was adopted by the trial court, and the wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the wife raised a number of issues.  Two of those issues related to the partnership.  First, she argued that the trial court erred in simply adopting the special master’s report without making independent findings.  She also argued that the court erred in classifying the partnership as marital property.

The court first addressed the issue of how the lower court had adopted the special master’s report.  Even though the court did not make independent findings, it did carefully review the report, which it noted contained an extensive investigation of the issues.  The trial judge concluded that the special master had done an excellent job.

Based upon this record, the appeals court agreed that the trial court had not merely “rubber stamped” the report.  It was clear that the trial court had exercised independent judgment, and the appeals court approved the procedure.

The appeals court then turned to the issue of whether the partnership was properly classified as marital property.  It noted that the property was acquired during the course of the marriage, and that the husband was a signatory on the company’s account.

After carefully reviewing the evidence, the appeals court agreed with the lower court’s findings as to value and nature of the property.

After addressing a number of other issues, the court went on to affirm the lower court’s judgment.

No. E2014-01506-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.