After 25 Years of Marriage, Disabled Tenn Wife Received Less in Assets
Tennessee law case summary on marital property, equitable division and worker’s compensation in Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
LINDA HAUN SCARBROUGH v. GARY LYNN SCARBROUGH
Gary Lynn Scarbrough (the husband) and Linda Haun Scarbrough (the wife) married in 1985 and divorced in 2010 after 25 years of marriage. During the marriage, both worked in the police force. After five years as a police officer, the Wife was involved in a work-related accident, which left her both physically and psychologically unable to continue working. She received a pension, worker’s compensation and benefits to obtain a care giver. The husband retired soon after in order to take care of the wife. At the time of divorce, the wife was 59 and the husband was 61.
The trial court divided the property at the divorce. Each side was allowed to keep his or her own pension. The husband received $335 in separate property, $45,080 of marital property and transitional spousal support of $1,000.00 per month, for sixty months. The Wife received $2,010 in separate property, $7,010 of the marital property and $60,180 in worker’s compensation benefits that she received during the parties’ separation and prior to their final divorce decree, which the court classified as marital property. The wife appealed the decision arguing that the division of marital property was unfair because the husband has fewer monthly expenses and more disposable income.
The division of property
The trial court divided the property with the understanding that the parties received comparable pensions and social security but the wife also received $1,830 in worker’s compensation and $3,640 monthly for attendant care. The wife argued on appeal that the worker’s compensation she received during the separation should not be considered marital property because it was paid out in monthly installments, leaving only $7,000 to be paid out at the time of the actual divorce. Contained within this $7,000 were pension and social security payments which she argued, should be deducted, as well as the fees for attendant care.
The wife argued that the attendant care benefits, contained within the worker’s compensation payments, were not marital property. The benefits were not for lost income but rather to provide her with care. The husband, however, quit his job to take care of the wife, and the attendant care benefits were to cover his lost income. Further, while the wife claimed she gave the money to her son for driving her around, the checks were made out to her, the son had another job and there was no official record of him as caregiver. The wife was also able and independent. The appeals court held that these facts do not create evidence to change the trial court’s classification of the benefits as marital property which should be divided equally between the parties.
The appeals court further rejected the wife’s claim that the worker’s compensation she received during the separation should not be considered marital property since it was already spent. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121(b)(1)(A) states that marital property is all property acquired during the marriage and owned by both parties, and includes any property acquired up to the date of the final divorce hearing. The wife acquired the worker’s compensation during the marriage and received the benefits in question prior to the final divorce decree. The appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision that the worker’s compensation received during the divorce proceedings was marital property.
The appeals court upheld the fact-finding of the lower court and agreed with the definitions of marital property. It then decided on whether the division of that marital property was equitable. The trial court considered a number of factors in determining the division of marital property, including the long-term length of the marriage, the parties’ similar ages, the unlikelihood that either party would return to work due to poor health, and each party’s income, expenses and separate property. When the monthly income of each spouse was calculated, including the spousal support the wife was ordered to pay the husband, the wife was left with over $3,600 after expenses while the husband was left with just under $150 surplus. Based on this disparity, the appeals court upheld that trial court’s division of the marital property.
No. E2011-01854-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 4, 2012).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
Memphis divorce attorney, Miles Mason, Sr., practices family law exclusively and is founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC. Buy The Tennessee Divorce Client’s Handbook: What Every Divorcing Spouse Needs to Know, available on Amazon and Kindle. To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.
