Range Rover Stays Husband’s Separate Property in Tennessee Divorce

Tennessee case summary on property division and classification in divorce.

Mark Stephen Keown v. Alyson Savino Keown

At the time of their Tennessee divorce, Mark and Alyson Keown had been married less than two years, and were the parents of one child who was three years old.  Shortly after the child was born, the mother moved to New York with the child to be closer to her family.  During the marriage, both worked for an insurance agency owned by the husband and his father.

One of the issues in the case was the disposition of a 2006 Range Rover.  The vehicle was purchased prior to the marriage, and was financed by the insurance agency.  It was titled in the name of the husband and the insurance agency, but it was agreed that the wife would drive this vehicle.  While the divorce was pending, she paid for the maintenance of the vehicle, and had also paid over $6000 toward the vehicle’s loan.

Among other issues was the status of the Range Rover.  The father argued, and the trial court agreed, that the vehicle was the husband’s separate property.  The wife argued, however, that the vehicle had been transmuted into marital property, and should have been divided along with the other marital assets.

After the trial court ruled against her, the wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that property owned by one spouse prior to the marriage is generally separate property.  However, it can become marital property if there is evidence showing that the parties intended for it to be marital property and treated it as such.  The wife pointed to the fact that she had driven the vehicle, and continued to make the payments while the divorce was pending.

The trial court had concluded that the vehicle was separate property because of the name on the title, and the fact that the wife’s payments were small in comparison to those originally made by the husband and his company.

The appeals court carefully reviewed the evidence, and concluded that the evidence did not preponderate against the lower court’s factual findings.  Therefore, it affirmed this portion of the ruling and kept the vehicle’s status as the husband’s separate property.

Because of the wife’s relocation, the appeals court also looked at the child’s transportation expenses for visitation purposes.  It modified this portion of the lower court’s order somewhat.

No. M2014-00915-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 29, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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