House Was Marital Property Despite Being Purchased With Husband’s Funds
Tennessee case summary on property classification in divorce.
Joe Riley Prichard v. Rhonda Kay Prichard
The husband and wife in this Dyer County, Tennessee, case were married in 2006 and had one child. The husband had worked since a young age at Caterpillar, but when the plant shut down, he became an insurance salesman. The wife had worked in medical technology for most of the marriage, but had been laid off and was working as a teacher’s assistant.
In 2020, the husband filed for divorce, and the wife filed a counter-petition. Each spouse alleged inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences. The wife later alleged adultery. Trial was held in 2022. The parties were able to agree to a number of property issues.
The trial court found that the husband had engaged in adultery and inappropriate marital conduct. The marital residence was classified as marital property, and was awarded to the wife. The husband was ordered to pay transitional alimony, but not the wife’s attorney fees. The husband was awarded two rental properties, and the wife was given portions of the husband’s IRA accounts. After various post-trial motions, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The husband argued that the property division was flawed. In particular, he argued that he wasn’t given proper credit for his use of separate funds to purchase the marital residence.
After stating the standard of review, the appeals court turned to the classification of the marital residence. The husband argued that since the property was purchased with his separate property, it should have been deemed separate property.
The trial court had relied upon a rebuttable presumption that a marital residence purchased during the marriage is marital property. The appeals court held that this presumption was not rebutted. It pointed to the fact that the intention was to use the property as a marital residence. The parties shared in costs of improvements, and the wife paid utility bills with her funds. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling on this point.
The court then turned to the overall distribution of the property, under which the husband had received about 40.5%, and the wife 59.5%. The appeals court did make a modification, since the lower court had mis-valued the wife’s checking account by about $4000. But after reviewing the overall split of the property, the appeals court concluded that the lower court had acted properly.
For these reasons, other than the one modification, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
No. W2022-00728-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 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?
To learn more, see Transmutation in Tennessee Property Division Divorce Law.
