Property Husband Bought Day After Wedding Remained Separate

Tennessee case summary on property division in divorce.

Property bought by husband the day after wedding remains separate property.

David E. Tate v. Felicia M. Tate

The husband and wife in this Rutherford County case were married in 2020.  The day after the wedding, the husband closed on the purchase of property, and the parties lived there for the duration of their short marriage.

The property was titled in the husband’s name alone, and he had obtained a loan secured by a separate property as collateral.  The wife did not sign the promissory note for the property, nor did she have any other obligations.

Shortly after making the purchase, the husband sold off his other property, paid off the loan, and deposited the balance into his separate bank account.

Before the marriage, the wife owned another property which she sold after the marriage.  She deposited the proceeds into her separate account.

Less than two years after marrying, the husband filed for divorce.

The wife testified that she had made some small contributions to the property, but acknowledged that most of the increase in value was due to market forces.

The trial court held that the property was the husband’s separate property.  In particular, the trial court noted that the marriage was of short duration, and that in such cases, it’s appropriate to put the parties back in the position they would have held had the marriage not taken place.  The court also denied the wife’s request for alimony.

The wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals and argued that the property should have been found to be a marital asset, and not separate property.  After addressing a procedural issue, the appeals court turned to the classification of the marital residence.  On this issue, the court relied on the fact that the husband had financed the purchase with his previously owned property.  This fact led the appeals court to agree with the lower court that the property was separate when acquired.

The wife argued, however, that the asset became marital due to commingling and transmutation.  But the appeals court was quick to point out that both spouses continued to maintain their separate bank accounts.

The wife pointed to her repeated demands to have her name put on the property, but the appeals court pointed out that the husband’s refusal to do so made his case stronger.  Overall, the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s finding.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed.  It also assessed the costs of appeal against the wife.

No. M2022-01438-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 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?