Wife Not Entitled to House Brought to Marriage by Husband
Tennessee alimony divorce case summary after 15 years married plus property classification of house.
Safronia Rufsholm v. Jerry Rufsholm
The husband and wife in this Montgomery County, Tennessee, case were married in 2000. They had no children, although the wife had children from a prior marriage. The husband was retired from the military and drew a military pension. During the marriage, he also worked for the VA. The wife served mostly as a homemaker, but was also employed outside the home. She had a certified nursing assistant license that had lapsed, and worked at a daycare at the time of separation.
One of the assets at issue in the case was a residence that had been purchased by the husband prior to the marriage. It was valued at approximately $84,500, and remained titled in the husband’s name. This property was refinanced during the marriage, and the wife signed the deed of trust. The parties maintained separate checking accounts for most of the marriage, and the husband made mortgage payments with funds that came from his military pension.
The wife filed for divorce after 15 years of marriage. The husband admitted that there were irreconcilable differences, but denied the wife’s claim of inappropriate marital conduct and cruel and inhuman treatment.
After trial, the court concluded that the residence was the husband’s separate property and awarded it to him. However, it found that the increase in value of $20,000 was a marital asset, and awarded the wife $8,000 as her share. After deciding the other property issues, the trial court turned to the question of alimony and awarded the wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $400 per month. An appeal followed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
In her appeal, the wife argued that the trial court had erred in finding that the residence was the husband’s separate property.
The appeals court noted that the refinancing gave some weight to the wife’s argument that the property had been transmuted into a marital asset. But it also took note of the fact that the parties kept their finances separate, and that all of the mortgage payments came from the husband’s military pension. Based upon all of the facts, the appeals court agreed with the trial court that the property remained the husband’s separate asset.
The wife also argued that the alimony was inadequate. The trial court had based its ruling on two factors. First, it had found that the wife shared fault for the demise of the marriage. Also, it noted that the wife was soon eligible to collect social security. The appeals court examined the evidence and concluded that the trial court’s findings were supported.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
No. M2016-02404-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2018).
Note: Author is not quite sure why opinion states Wife argued against alimony in futuro unless she wanted more money for a set period of time rather than it be left modifiable.
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Alimony Law in Tennessee.
