Jimmy D. Ogle v. Julie D. Duff
E2016-01295-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.May 24, 2017Background
- Jimmy Ogle (Husband) and Julie Duff (Wife) married in 2006; divorce granted on stipulated grounds and trial court later divided the marital estate. Husband appealed the property classification and distribution.
- Husband transferred pre-marital real property (Tanasi Shores and White County lots) into a revocable trust he created in 2009; Wife signed warranty deeds conveying any marital interest to the trust. Trust named Wife and her children as beneficiaries and Wife as successor trustee.
- Parties maintained separate accounts during the marriage; Wife worked as a teacher and Husband was a self-employed surveyor. Husband had premarital IRAs (Fidelity Primary IRA being largest) that appreciated during the marriage.
- Trial court found no enforceable postnuptial agreement (insufficient mutual assent), divested the trust of assets and revested title as before the trust, classified appreciation of the marital residence as marital property (awarded Wife share), but classified IRA appreciation as marital property; divided marital estate equally.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals upheld divestiture of the trust, affirmed classification of residence appreciation as marital, reversed classification of Fidelity IRA appreciation as marital (no substantial contribution or commingling), and adjusted the equitable division accordingly; denied Wife appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ogle) | Defendant's Argument (Duff) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trust deeds/post‑trust documents created an enforceable postnuptial agreement | Trust documents and warranty deeds are a written postnuptial agreement; trial court should have applied Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑3‑501 | No mutual assent: parties had different understandings; trust documents do not evidence an agreement to divide property on divorce | No enforceable postnuptial agreement; trial court correctly divested the trust and revested titles |
| Whether increase in value of Tanasi Shores (premarital residence) is marital property | Appreciation is separate | Wife substantially contributed (financial and labor) to preservation/appreciation | Affirmed: appreciation ($125,250) classified as marital due to Wife’s contributions |
| Whether appreciation in Fidelity Primary IRA (premarital IRA) is marital property | IRA appreciation is marital (trial court found contributions/commingling) | IRA remains separate; Wife made no substantial contribution and Husband did not commingle marital funds into it | Reversed: IRA appreciation is Husband’s separate property (no nexus of spouse contributions; no commingling) |
| Whether equal division of marital estate was error given short marriage | Equal division ignores short duration and premarital disparities | Both parties materially contributed; commingling occurred; short duration weighed but not controlling | Affirmed as modified: equal division appropriate under facts; adjusted for IRA reversal; no appellate attorney fees awarded to Wife |
Key Cases Cited
- Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. 2004) (distinguishing antenuptial, reconciliation, and postnuptial agreements and treating postnuptial agreements as contracts)
- Langschmidt v. Langschmidt, 81 S.W.3d 741 (Tenn. 2002) (premarital IRAs funded with premarital assets remain separate unless spouse substantially contributed or commingling occurred)
- Keyt v. Keyt, 244 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (standards for when appreciation of separate property becomes marital due to spouse contributions)
- Sweeten v. Trade Envelopes, Inc., 938 S.W.2d 383 (Tenn. 1996) (meeting of the minds requirement in contract formation)
- Davis v. Davis, 223 S.W.3d 233 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (resolving conflicting valuation evidence)