Anne Elise Littleton Jakobik v. Erik Carter Jakobik
M2024-00155-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Anne Elise Littleton Jakobik (“Wife”) and Erik Carter Jakobik (“Husband”) divorced after a long-term marriage with no children.
- The most significant asset was their marital residence, which was sold during divorce proceedings, with proceeds held pending resolution of property division.
- Husband earned substantially more than Wife; during the marriage, he paid most expenses and the mortgage until Wife’s parents paid off the remaining balance as a gift.
- Wife quit her job and attempted to further her education, supported financially by her parents, but claimed Husband’s alcoholism forced her to quit school.
- The trial court adopted a special master’s recommendation to divide marital assets equally and require each party to pay their own attorney’s fees, with one modification making Husband solely responsible for the marital credit card debt.
- Wife appealed, challenging both the property division and the ruling on attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Division of marital estate | Wife deserved a credit for her parents' mortgage payoff and a larger share due to Husband’s alleged fault and earning disparity | Husband contributed significantly; mortgage payoff was a gift; equal division appropriate | Equal division affirmed; mortgage payoff was a gift, not a debt owed to Wife |
| Award of attorney’s fees (alimony) | Wife sought fees due to need, Husband's higher income, and marital fault | Each pay own fees; Wife received sufficient property to cover fees | Each party to pay their own fees; Wife has adequate property to pay hers |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (attorney’s fees in divorce cases may be awarded as alimony in solido, based on need and ability to pay)
- Flannary v. Flannary, 121 S.W.3d 647 (Tenn. 2003) (trial courts have discretion to equitably divide marital estates)
- Larsen-Ball v. Ball, 301 S.W.3d 228 (Tenn. 2010) (statutory factors guide equitable division of assets; appellate deference to trial court)
- Altman v. Altman, 181 S.W.3d 676 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (defining dissipation in the context of property division)
- Morton v. Morton, 182 S.W.3d 821 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (appellate courts do not alter property division absent abuse of discretion)