Husband Must Pay Wife 1/2 of Car Restored During Marriage
Husband Must Pay Wife 1/2 of Car Restored During Marriage
Tennessee case summary on divorce, property division, and custody.
Kacy Collums Davis v. Richard E. Davis, Jr.
The husband and wife were married in 2003 and had five children, the eldest of which were from the wife’s first marriage and adopted by the husband. They separated in 2013 and the wife filed for divorce in 2013 in Shelby County, Tennessee. The litigation dragged on for six years until the Judge Rhynette N. Hurd made the final order in the case in 2019.
During the course of the litigation, the mother argued that the children did not have a positive relationship with the husband, and a guardian ad litem was appointed in 2014. When the guardian ad litem recommended equal parenting time, the wife objected to the appointment. Also, the wife’s first attorney withdrew in 2014, with attorney’s fees of over $67,000 still owing, and the attorney filed a lien for the fees, plus interest.
Ultimately, the trial court awarded equal parenting time of 182.5 days. Based on the parties’ income, the husband was ordered to pay child support of $889 per month.
The wife was also awarded transitional alimony of $2500 per month for five years, plus $7500 in attorney’s fees.
All assets were found to be marital property, and the husband was awarded about $279,000 of those assets, with the wife getting about $176,000. The husband was also assigned the majority of the debt.
The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. He first questioned the property division, especially the allocation of the debts. The appeals court reviewed the statutory factors and noted that the trial court had broad discretion when it comes to property division.
The husband’s argument focused on a 1978 Toyota Landcruiser. He had owned it prior to the marriage, but had expended marital funds as he worked to restore it, although the husband characterized his work as fairly minor.
The lower court had given the vehicle to the husband, with the stipulation that he have it appraised and pay half the value to the wife. The Court of Appeals held that this approach was appropriate.
The trial court had allowed the husband to remain in the marital residence, but he was required to pay wife half the equity, but only after payment of the substantial attorney’s lien. The husband noted that the practical effect was that he was then responsible for paying half of the attorney’s fee. After carefully reviewing the evidence, the appeals court held that the lower court had taken the correct approach in making this division.
The husband also argued that the lower court should not have awarded transitional alimony and attorney’s fees. Once again, the appeals court noted that trial courts have broad discretion in matters of alimony.
The appeals court reviewed the statutory factors, such as the relative ages and earning capacities of the parties. The lower court found that the wife was the economically disadvantaged spouse, and the appeals court agreed with that reasoning. For this reason, it affirmed the lower court’s alimony award.
The appeals court also agreed with the lower court’s findings as to the parenting plan, and affirmed the equal division of parenting time:
The evidence does not preponderate against the findings of fact underpinning the trial court’s permanent parenting plan order. The trial court’s ruling of equal parenting time for the parties comports with our legislature’s directive to “order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child[ren]” as warranted by the factual circumstances of the case. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). The judgment regarding the permanent parenting plan is affirmed. (Emphasis added.)
No other commentary on maximum participation possible appeared in the opinion.
The Court of Appeals reviewed a number of other issues, and found no error, with one exception. The parties agreed that the lower court had made a clerical error which counted the wife’s retirement account twice. For that reason, the appeals court modified that portion of the judgment. In all other respects, the lower court’s judgment was affirmed.
No. W2019–02245-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2021).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.
