Property Divided Equally After 29 Year Tennessee Marriage 

Tennessee case summary on property division in divorce.

Zia Mousavi Kabiri v. Shirin Davari Kabiri

The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case had been married for 29 years and had an adult daughter before the husband, then 71, filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct.

The husband had emigrated from Iran in 1965 and was a nuclear engineer for the TVA.  He took early retirement in 1994 and received a cash severance and pension benefit.  He also received $2,800 per month in Social Security.  At the time of the divorce, he also managed rental properties owned by the parties.

The wife was still working as a teacher where she had been employed for 20 years, earning about $48,000 per year.  She testified that she didn’t know English when she came to the United States to finish her education.

The rental properties owned by the parties were financed by withdrawals from the husband’s 401(k) and from a personal injury recovery.  Some of those properties became vacant while the divorce was proceeding.

The parties had numerous disputes as to the value of household furnishings, which included Persian rugs.  The trial court had ordered them to be auctioned to the highest bidder.  The trial court also found that both parties had depleted the marital assets, but that there would be no findings of contempt.

One issue was the value of the marital home.  The trial court ordered it be sold as-is, with the proceeds divided equally.  After valuing and dividing other property, the court awarded about $490,000 to each spouse.

The wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, making a number of arguments as to property issues.  The appeals court then reviewed the record, after noting that the trial court’s findings enjoyed a presumption of correctness.

The wife first argued that the trial judge should have recused himself, based upon his personal acquaintance with one of the husband’s witnesses.  But the appeals court reviewed the record and concluded that recusal was not called for.

The wife next argued that the lower court had improperly valued the husband’s TVA pension.  However, the appeals court pointed out that she had not proposed any alternative valuation method.  Therefore, the appeals court concluded that the valuation was reasonable.

The wife next argued that certain jewelry items were her own separate property, and the trial court should not have considered them part of the marital estate.  Here, since the items were purchased as marital property, and there was no evidence that they were intended as gifts, the appeals court also let stand this ruling.

The wife also argued that the trial court had mischaracterized a particular Persian rug.  But once again, the appeals court reviewed the evidence and concluded that the trial court’s ruling was reasonable.

After reviewing the remaining property issues in the case, the appeals court agreed that they, too, had been correctly decided.  For these reasons, it affirmed the judgment of the trial court and assessed the costs of appeal against the wife.

No. E2014-01980-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.