After Four Year Marriage, Wife Entitled to Only 13% of House Equity

Tennessee case summary on property division in a short-term marriage and divorce.

Naconda Kathleen Webb v. William Danny Webb

Property division in a short-term marriage and divorce.

The husband and wife in this Dyer County, Tennessee, case were married for only four years and had no children when the wife filed for divorce.  When the case came to trial, the husband was 71, and the wife, 55.  The husband was a retired contractor.  He had a small monthly income from rental properties, and received $1500 per month from social security.  The wife worked as a welder and earned $17.75 per hour.  She also worked at an assisted living facility and earned $10 per hour.  She took care of the finances, and deposited her paycheck into the husband’s rental account.  She paid the bills out of that account.

The most valuable asset was their residence, which was appraised at $210,000, with a $69,000 mortgage.  The title was in the husband’s name, but the loan was taken out jointly.  The house needed a lot of work, much of which was done by the wife.  The husband’s brother repaired the foundation and floor.  The brother valued the work at $40,000, but the husband paid $12,000.

The wife contributed $30,000 from the sale of her former residence.  The husband said that he paid at least $179,000 of his separate funds, although the wife called this figure hard to believe.

About the time they moved into this house, the wife operated a restaurant, and the husband bought $8000 worth of equipment to update the kitchen.  The husband claimed that the wife also withdrew $31,000 to keep it afloat, although it never made a profit and eventually closed.

They separated shortly thereafter, with the wife claiming that the husband continually screamed at her and she was afraid.

The trial court ruled that the home was marital property with equity of about $140,000.  It awarded the property to the husband, who assumed the debt and also had to pay the wife $18,000 for her share of the equity.

The wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  She argued that the division of property was inequitable, and also that she should have been awarded attorney’s fees.  She pointed out that she received only 13% of the home’s value, and she was entitled to half.

The lower court had focused on the fact that this was a short marriage, and that the husband had brought more assets than the wife.  In a short-term marriage, the appeals court agreed that the respective contributions of the spouses was an important factor.  Since the husband contributed “far more” to the house value than the wife, the appeals court agreed that the lower court acted properly.

It reviewed the monetary contributions of each spouse and agreed with the lower court’s findings.  The wife pointed to her countless hours of cleaning and repairing, but the court pointed out that this is a less important factor in short-term marriages.  For these reasons, the appeals court affirmed the property division.  It also affirmed the lower court’s denial of attorney fees.

No. W2021-01227-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 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?