Relevance of Classifying Property at the Time of Tennessee Divorce
Tennessee law case summary on property division and valuation in Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals. Note: this is the second article on this case in this Blog.
Mary Butcher v Ronald Butcher – Tennessee property division law and classification
In Butcher v. Butcher, the husband appealed the trial courts classification and division of property in divorce proceedings. The court of appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court.
Mary Butcher (the wife) and Ronald Butcher (the husband) were married in October 1976. In September 2007, after 31 years of marriage, the wife filed a complaint for legal separation and in May 2009, she filed an amended decree for legal separation and divorce. The trial court awarded a final divorce decree in July 2011. The trial court also divided the parties’ property, awarded each party their own business and the wife the real property in which the businesses operated. The trial court also awarded Ms. Butcher $26,139.00 in alimony in solido, a lump-sum payment. The property division gave the wife 61% of the marital assets and 39% went to the husband.
On appeal, the husband asked the court to rule that the lower court did not divide the marital property fairly. He argued that one of the businesses, Butcher Tax Services, was a partnership between the two parties and therefore it should have been given a monetary value before it was divided.
The wife argued that the appeal should be dismissed for two reasons. Firstly, the husband did not comply with Rule 7 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee. This rule requires that on appeal in domestic relations cases, all marital and separately owned properties in question must be listed in a table format and include such information as classification and valuation. The husband failed to submit this table on appeal and made no offer to submit them at any time. The Court of Appeals held that the Rule 7 table is vital in helping the court make appropriate and fair decisions regarding the value and distribution of property. The Court of Appeals further held that the court has no obligation, in the case when such a table is omitted, to search through the court records to try to ascertain the status of the property and/or its value.
The wife’s second argument was that since the husband did not argue in the lower court that the parties operated a joint business partnership, this claim could not be made for the first time on appeal. The Court of Appeals agreed with the wife. During the trial, the husband did not assert that the parties operated a joint business that should be valued and divided as a partnership. His only objection at the time the final decision was granted was that the trial court made a mistake by not determining the value of each parties business. During trial, it was clear from testimony by both parties that each had their own separate business, and that each maintained their own separate business bank accounts. The husband never argued that they operated a partnership nor did he submit any kind of documentation or other evidence to the trial court which indicated the value of each business. Since these issues were not raised in the trial court, the Court of Appeals agreed with the wife and found that the husband could not raise them for the first time on appeal. The Court of Appeals further added that it is the job of the parties, and not the court, to offer values to the property.
No. W2011-01808-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 12, 2012).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
The Miles Mason Family Law Group handles Tennessee divorce, child support, alimony, child custody, and parent relocation. Download our free e-Book,Your First Steps: 7 Steps Planning Your Tennessee Divorce. A Memphis divorce lawyer from the Miles Mason Family Law Group can help. To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.
