Owned Prior to Marriage by Wife, Marital Residence Held Marital

Tennessee case summary on classification of marital residence in divorce.

Jonathan George Carter v. Elizabeth Jo Browne

The husband and wife in this Shelby County, Tennessee, case were married in 2008 and had no children.  In 2015, the wife filed for divorce, and the husband filed a counter-complaint for divorce.

The trial court denied the wife alimony in futuro, but awarded her the parties’ residence.  The house had previously been owned by the wife’s family, and in 2009, the husband’s name was added to the deed in order to obtain a line of credit.  The proceeds of that line of credit were used to make improvements to the property.

The husband, on the other hand, took the position that the property had been in a state of disrepair.  In addition to the line of credit, he testified that other marital funds to do repairs.  He also testified that his family had done some of the work.

The wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals and argued that the lower court erred in denying her alimony.  The husband, on the other hand, argued that the marital residence was marital property and should have been divided.

The Court of Appeals first affirmed the lower court’s ruling with respect to alimony.  It then turned to the classification of the house.

The appeals court first noted that the question of classification of property must take into account all of the relevant circumstances.  It also noted that the trial court’s determination has a presumption of correctness.

One issue the Court of Appeals considered was the fact that the title to the property was in both names.  It stated that this is evidence of the property being marital.  But it also noted that this is not always controlling and can be overcome by evidence of contrary intent.  In this case, the trial court had found that the wife had overcome the presumption that the name on the title should be controlling.

The Court of Appeals, citing an earlier case, agreed with the husband.  Even though the presumption might have been rebutted at the time the title was changed, the lower court had not taken into account later circumstances.  In particular, the parties used the property as their marital residence for many years, and they made improvements with joint funds.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals concluded that the residence was marital property.  Therefore, it reversed this portion of the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

No. W2018-00429-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Transmutation in Tennessee Property Division Divorce Law.