Tennessee Husband Did Not Dissipate Marital Funds

Tennessee case summary on dissipation in divorce.

Rebecca Burke Pair v. Chris Franklin Pair 

The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case were married in 1988 and had two children at the time of their 2010 divorce.  Both parties alleged irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct as grounds.  They both stipulated to the divorce, but went to trial on the property issues.  The wife was awarded $5,000 per month transitional alimony for 24 months, after which the amount would be reduced to $3,000 per month until the age of 67.  The court also awarded her $25,000 for attorney fees.

The wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  She argued that the husband had dissipated marital assets, which made the ultimate distribution inequitable.  She also argued that the award for attorney fees was insufficient.

The appeals court noted that if one spouse does dissipate marital assets, then this is one of the factors that should be considered in making the final award.  But it also noted that both the burden of persuasion and the initial burden of production are on the party making the allegation of dissipation.  In this case, because the wife was the one making the claim, she had the burden of going forward with the evidence on this issue.  The court noted that this burden is not satisfied simply by arguing that she didn’t know how the money was spent.  The appeals court pointed out that divorcing spouses do have discretion on how they spend, and that not every case of discretionary spending amounts to dissipation.

Once the spouse making the allegation produces a prima facie case, it is only then that the other spouse bears the burden of showing that the expenses were appropriate.

In this case, the husband had deposited about $1.1 million into his accounts in the four years prior to the divorce, and produced evidence showing that his expenses were over $900,000.  He testified that he had no “hidden money,” and that the wife had access to all of the bank and credit card statements.

The trial court had stated that the allegations of dissipation had been bothersome, but there was no evidence that the husband had willfully done anything wasteful while the divorce was pending.

The appeals court first reiterated the burden of proof.  Even though the wife argued that some language in earlier cases supported the burden being on the husband, the appeals court declined to depart from its earlier precedents.

Based upon its review of the evidence, the appeals court held that the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s ruling, and therefore affirmed the finding that there had been no dissipation.

The Court of Appeals went on to review the other property and alimony rulings and also found them to be reasonable.  Therefore, it affirmed the lower court’s ruling in its entirety.

No. M2014-00727-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.