Husband Played “Hide and Seek” With Cattle During Divorce

Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 25 years married.

Brent Landon Carter v. Shannon Dale Carter

The husband and wife in this Overton County, Tennessee, case were married in 1995, and had two children, both of whom have reached the age of majority.  The husband and wife lived on a 212-acre farm owned by the husband’s mother, which the husband managed.  Initially, the lived in a single-wide trailer, and then built a small house on which they lived for three years.  During this time, the  husband’s mother deeded him approximately 5 acres on which the house was located.  They later moved into the farmhouse located on the mother’s property, and rented out their original house.

The husband filed for divorce in 2017, and the wife made a counterclaim.  They both agreed that there were irreconcilable differences, and they left for the court to decide the property and alimony issues.  A trial was held over three days, stretching from 2019 through 2020.

At the time of trial, the husband was 51, and the wife was 46.  The husband had a masters degree and was employed in education, with monthly gross income of about $4400.  In addition, he had income from cattle farming, hay, beekeeping, and a vending machine business, although he claimed that he had no income from the various business ventures.

After the wife moved out, the wife submitted evidence that the husband moved 72 cows to another property and was feeding them.  He agreed that he had a total of 29 cows, six of which he claimed were marital property.

The husband claimed that the cattle operation was not profitable, but the wife showed evidence that he had sold 35 head of cattle for about $24,000.  The husband denied ownership of certain farm equipment, but the wife produced evidence that he had claimed them as expenses on tax returns.

The only real estate was the parcel on which the first house had been built, and the husband asserted that this was his separate property.

At the time of the trial, the wife taught third grade and earned a gross annual income of about $44,000.  She had student loan debts of about $40,000.

The parties maintained separate checking accounts, and the wife claimed that the husband paid only a few utilities, leaving her to provide for the children from her own funds.

After they were separated, the parties purchased a house and furniture for the wife.  The mortgage was $750 per month, and the wife was frequently unable to make this payment.  The husband remained in the farmhouse.

After trial, the trial court concluded that the husband’s testimony was not credible.  The court noted, for example, that the husband had “been playing hide and seek with them.”

The court awarded the wife the 5 acres and house as marital property, and ordered the husband to pay the remaining mortgage.  He was also ordered to pay alimony in futuro in the amount of $1,000 per month, in addition to the wife’s attorney’s fees.  The court had held that the wife had a need, and the husband had income beyond what he disclosed to the court.

The total of all retirement accounts were to be divided between the parties, with the wife being charged for withdrawals she had made during the mortgage.  As for the cattle, the wife was awarded a judgment of over $12,000.

The husband then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The husband first argued that the trial court had erred in categorizing the 5 acres and house as marital property.  The husband noted that the parcel was gift from his mother, but the wife noted that they lived there as a family and then used it to generate rental income.  She argued that it thereby became marital property through transmutation and comingling.

The appeals court agreed with the wife.  It pointed out that they constructed a house there, lived in the house, and then used it to generate income.  Even though they kept their finances separate, they both contributed to this asset, making it marital.  For this reason, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that it was marital property.

The husband then argued that it was error to award this property to the wife, without his receiving a commensurate amount.  But the appeals court looked at the relevant factors of equitable division and held that these factors supported the court’s finding.  Therefore, it affirmed this award.

Finally, the husband argued that the award of alimony and attorney’s fees was improper.  But the appeals court noted that the trial court has broad discretion when it comes to alimony, and after reviewing the statutory factors, it agreed that this award was also proper.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.  The costs of the appeal were taxed against the husband.

No. M2020–01704-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 10,  2021).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee, and our video, How is alimony decided in Tennessee?