Tennessee case abstract on dissipation and appreciation of separate property in divorce.
Lori Ann Amacher v. Stanley Dwight Amacher
The husband and spouse on this Franklin County, Tennessee, case had been married in 1981. That they had two kids, each of whom had reached the age of majority previous to their 2014 divorce. The husband had fashioned a common contracting agency a couple of 12 months earlier than the wedding and labored as a municipal and utility contractor. The spouse labored as a lab technician till 1981, however she was a stay-at-home mom throughout the marriage. She did some work for the contracting agency throughout the marriage.
The spouse filed for divorce a couple of 12 months after the events had separated, and so they continued residing individually because the divorce case confronted various delays. The husband lived within the marital dwelling and ceased working the contracting enterprise. The spouse bought a house after separation. The full marital property exceeded $2 million.
Trial was held in 2019 earlier than Decide Melissa T. Blevins-Willis. After the ultimate judgment, the spouse introduced an attraction to the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals and raised various points.
The primary challenge that the appellate court docket tackled was the appreciation of the spouse’s dwelling. The trial court docket had labeled this as marital property, however the spouse argued that it ought to have been handled as her separate property. The spouse had bought the home for $130,000 after the separation, and on the time of trial, it was valued at about $268,000. The preliminary buy value was her separate property, since she had used the proceeds from her separate CD to make the acquisition. She testified that she had used a further $60,000 of her separate funds to do renovations. The husband had additionally spent about $20,000 for the enhancements, and the husband testified that he “form of designed” a few of them.
Sadly, the appeals court docket concluded that the decrease court docket had did not make enough factual findings to assist the classification. Subsequently, the appeals court docket despatched the case again to the decrease court docket to make particular determinations.
The appeals court docket then addressed various points regarding the husband’s properties earlier than turning to the problem of dissipation. The spouse argued that the husband had dissipated property by transferring about $150,000 to his son, and for borrowing cash from the contracting firm.
The husband argued that he had truly transferred cash to a joint account with the son as a result of the spouse was “threatening and unstable.” The husband identified that the financial institution statements had been in proof, and that they confirmed that there had been no switch to the son from this account. Whereas the financial institution statements weren’t earlier than the appellate court docket, it concluded that the spouse had not met her burden to point out that there had been dissipation. Equally, the court docket concluded that there was nothing in regards to the husband’s mortgage transaction with the corporate that was indicative of dissipation.
After addressing the opposite property division and alimony points current within the case, the Court docket of Appeals remanded the case to the decrease court docket.
No. M2019-02251-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2021).
See unique opinion for actual language. Authorized citations omitted.
To be taught extra, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.
