Tennessee Doctor Doesn’t Get Piano in Divorce But Gets Value of House

Tennessee law case summary on property division in divorce law from the Court of Appeals.

Loretta M. Gaither v. Michael Deleon Gaither – Tennessee divorce property division classification

Michael Gaither, a medical doctor, had been married to Loretta Gaither, a nurse anesthetist, for 28 years at the time of their Tennessee divorce. The wife was 57 years old and the husband was 58.  After trial, the court divided their assets equally with two exceptions.  First, the trial court found that a baby grand piano was the wife’s separate property, since it had been given to her as a gift by the husband.  In addition, the trial court had awarded the wife the parties’ marital residence.  In valuing the property, it had deducted 20% from the value, which represented the costs of a hypothetical sale, had the property been sold rather than awarded to one party.  The total equity in the property had been approximately $403,000, and the court had reduced this to $323,000 to account for the hypothetical sale.  The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, arguing that these departures were improper.

The court first turned to the disposition of the piano, which was valued at $24,000.  The husband had admitted at trial that the piano had been a gift, but pointed out that it had been paid for with marital funds.  When they parties built their house, they included a piano room, since the wife played the piano as a hobby.  The husband did not play the piano.  The piano was purchased shortly after the house was built, and was paid for with part of the wife’s bonus, with the husband paying the balance.

The court noted that a gift from one spouse to another is considered separate property, and here, the husband had admitted that the piano was a gift.  Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling as to the piano.

The appeals court was more sympathetic to the husband, however, when it came to the value of the marital residence.  Here, the court looked at the overall distribution of property, and concluded that a basically equal division was equitable in this case.  It noted, however, that the deduction of the hypothetical costs of sale made the award lopsided, and for that reason held that the property should be valued at its full equity, without costs of sale.

Judge Susano concurred in the majority’s opinion, but wrote a brief separate opinion to point out his view that in some cases, assessing costs of sale might be appropriate, even though no actual sale takes place.

No. E2013-02681-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.