Kisha Dean Trezevant v. Stanley H. Trezevant, III
568 S.W.3d 595
Tenn. Ct. App.2018Background
- Long-term marriage (married 1990) between Husband (real-estate entrepreneur) and Wife; no minor custody issues at trial. Parties amassed a large, complex marital estate including ~49 commercial/residential properties and international (Cayman) assets.
- Wife filed for divorce in 2013; extensive litigation followed (multiple hearings, referee proceedings, discovery disputes, and contempt petitions). Final Decree entered March 1, 2017.
- Trial court classified most disputed assets (including Trip’s Nurseries and the "Nonconnah" parcels) as marital property and found several multi-million-dollar transfers to Wife were gifts (Wife’s separate property).
- Trial court relied heavily on Husband’s July 2012 unaudited financial statement to value many properties rather than contemporaneous certified appraisals, resulting in an aggregate marital-asset valuation the court used to divide assets and to set alimony awards.
- Trial court found Husband guilty of 19 counts of criminal contempt for concealing assets, misrepresenting financials, violating injunctions, failing to disclose/appraise properties, and related acts; sentenced to 55 days (stay pending appeal).
- Appellate disposition: affirmed classification of property and contempt findings/sentencing; vacated valuation, distribution of marital property, and alimony awards; remanded for findings/reevaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification: Trip’s Nurseries & Nonconnah properties; silver | Trip’s Nurseries and Nonconnah parcels are marital; Wife kept contested silver but returned separate items | Trip’s Nurseries and Nonconnah are Husband’s separate property; Wife retained Husband’s separate silver | Court and COA: affirmed classification as marital (transmutation/commingling evidence); affirmed dismissal of Husband’s silver claim (trial credibility favored Wife) |
| Transfers/gifts to Wife ($4,221,000) | Those checks were gifts (intent, delivery, Wife kept control); thus separate property | Husband contends some were loans/ambiguous and not proven as gifts | Affirmed: trial court found clear/convincing evidence of gifts; sums are Wife’s separate property |
| Dissipation re: Cayman transfer to Norman Klein ($~2.1M) | Wife: transfers were dissipation hiding marital assets; offset against Wife’s separate property award | Husband: Klein was equal partner; transfers were legitimate reimbursements/partnership distributions | Affirmed: COA found sufficient evidence Husband failed to substantiate partner interest; trial court’s dissipation finding upheld |
| Valuation of marital estate (use of 2012 Financial Statement vs. certified appraisals) | Wife relied on Husband’s 2012 financial statement; trial court used it as last bank statement pre-divorce | Husband: 2012 statement was unsigned/unsworn, outdated, and he admitted to inflating values; certified appraisals (2015–2016) should control — trial court overvalued Husband’s share by ~$24M | COA: rejected trial court’s unexplained rejection of certified appraisals and inadequate findings; vacated valuation and distribution and remanded for detailed findings and valuation near division date |
| Alimony and attorney’s fees (alimony in solido and futuro; fees awarded to Wife) | Wife: awards necessary to equalize and cover fees; fees partly due to Husband’s litigation conduct | Husband: awards should be reversed if property division reversed; court failed to account for changed ability to pay/benefit from property awarded to Wife | Vacated and remanded: alimony and fee awards tied to property-division valuation; must be reconsidered after proper valuation |
| Criminal contempt convictions & sentencing | Wife: Husband repeatedly concealed assets, misled court, violated injunctions/orders — contempt and substantial sentence appropriate | Husband: convictions lack proof beyond reasonable doubt; sentencing failed to apply statutory criteria for consecutive terms | Affirmed: COA found adequate evidentiary basis for each contempt count and no abuse of discretion in sentencing (55 days); COA reviewed but declined to disturb contempt findings or sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of appellate review for bench trials and deference to credibility findings)
- Keyt v. Keyt, 244 S.W.3d 321 (Tenn. 2007) (framework for identification, classification, valuation, and division of marital property)
- Langschmidt v. Langschmidt, 81 S.W.3d 741 (Tenn. 2002) (doctrines of commingling and transmutation of separate property)
- Luplow v. Luplow, 450 S.W.3d 105 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (valuing marital property and statutory factors)
- Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (Rule 52.01 findings of fact requirement and sufficiency of subsidiary facts)
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (attorney’s fees as alimony in solido in divorce context)
- Simpkins v. Simpkins, 374 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing considerations and contempt)
- Maples v. State, 565 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn. 1978) (distinction between perjury and contempt; contempt requires obstruction or interference with court process)