Wife Awarded New Car, Despite Being Classified as Marital Asset

Wife needed car for transportation of herself and the child, the court held that it was equitable to award it to the wife.

Tennessee case summary on property classification and division in divorce.

Jessica M. Amarino v. Jarone Amarino

After a rocky relationship, the husband and wife in this Montgomery County, Tennessee, case were married in 2021.  The next month, the husband, who served in the U.S. Army, was deployed overseas.

Immediately prior to proposing, the husband purchased a new Toyota 4-Runner and made a down payment, financing the rest.  He drove the vehicle to Tennessee, where he proposed to the wife.  He stated that he purchased the vehicle in order to give the wife safety and security and to fix the relationship.

But a few months later, the wife filed for divorce.

The case was heard about a year later, and the trial court determined that the 4-Runner was a gift to the wife, and therefore her separate property.  It awarded the vehicle to the wife, but held that the debt on the vehicle was marital, to be split between the parties.  The wife was also awarded half of her attorney’s fees.

The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, relying heavily on the fact that the marriage had lasted only four months.

The appeals court turned first to the classification of the vehicle.  It focused on the legal definition of “gift,” which requires intent to make a gift, as well as delivery of the gift.

At trial, the wife argued that the vehicle was given in order to “win her back.”  She introduced a journal entry and video in support of the vehicle being a gift.

The husband, on the other hand, noted that the vehicle was titled in his name, and that he had made all of the payments, as well as the registration and insurance.

The appeals court agreed with the husband.  It found that the evidence demonstrated a gift, but a gift to the marital estate.  It noted that marital funds were used to make the payments.  It also interpreted the video and journal to indicate that it would be a family car.  For this reason, it reversed the classification as marital property.

However, the husband was not ultimately successful in getting the car back.  The court noted that even though the vehicle was marital property, there was still the matter of how to distribute it.  In this case, the husband owned another vehicle, and if he had received the 4-runner, the wife would be without a car.  Since she needed it for transportation of herself and the child, the court held that it was equitable to award it to the wife, and it affirmed the award.  It also affirmed the trial court’s order making both parties responsible for the loan payment.

The appeals court also looked at all of the circumstances of the case, and concluded that the lower court had acted properly in awarding the wife half of her attorney’s fees.  It also awarded the wife her attorney’s fees for appeal.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded the case for calculation of the attorney’s fees.

No. M2023-00340-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2024).

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?