Michael Lee Givens v. Tristine Ann Givens
E2016-00865-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- Husband and Wife married in 2002; no children; divorce trial held 2015; Trial Court entered final orders in Jan. 2016 with revisions in Mar. and Nov. 2016; Wife appealed classification/distribution of assets.
- Husband owned a pre-marriage rental duplex on Taggart Drive (Taggart); deed in Husband’s name; mortgage existed at marriage; Husband paid off the mortgage during marriage and spent marital income remodeling Taggart.
- Parties acquired St. Lucie Court in 2010 (owned 50/50 with Messiers); deed lists Husband, Wife, and Lisa Messier; purchase funded in part by $23,000 from the marital home HELOC; rental income and Blue and Gold account involved.
- Husband operated a house-flipping partnership (“Blue and Gold”); Wife loaned $30,000 to that enterprise and is owed repayment; Blue and Gold account was frozen during divorce.
- Wife maintained two bank accounts with pre-marriage balances but deposited marital funds and paid marital expenses from them during marriage; Trial Court found those accounts commingled and marital.
- Experts offered conflicting valuations of Wife’s Teachers Retirement System pension (lump-sum vs. present-value pension option); Trial Court adopted the lump-sum valuation for division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of Taggart (pre-marital duplex) | Taggart remained Husband’s separate property; rents paid mortgage; Wife didn’t contribute | Wife argued marital funds used to pay off and improve Taggart, converting it to marital property | Court: Taggart is marital property (transmutation via substantial marital contributions); Trial Court’s separate-property classification reversed |
| Treatment of St. Lucie Court & Blue and Gold account | Trial Court properly classified as marital; Husband contends factors weighed in his favor | Wife argued Trial Court ignored parties’ alleged agreement re distribution | Court: No enforceable settlement agreement existed; Trial Court correctly treated both as marital and appropriately distributed them |
| Classification of Wife’s bank accounts (Catoosa & First TN) | Husband: accounts were marital due to deposits/withdrawals | Wife: accounts largely separate (pre-marital balances) | Court: Accounts were commingled; Trial Court’s finding that balances are marital is affirmed |
| Valuation of Wife’s pension (lump sum vs. present-value pension) | Husband argued present-value pension option should be used (through expert) | Wife argued lump-sum valuation (supported by expert) | Court: Trial Court’s choice of lump-sum valuation affirmed (trial court used lump-sum and marital portion) |
| Application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121(c) factors in distribution | Husband urged different weighting and effectively a 50/50 split | Wife defended Trial Court’s weighing and overall equitable division | Court: Trial Court considered statutory factors and did not abuse discretion; no change to overall distribution (except Taggart reclassification) |
Key Cases Cited
- Langschmidt v. Langschmidt, 81 S.W.3d 741 (Tenn. 2002) (defines commingling and transmutation doctrines converting separate into marital property)
- Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 295 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2009) (discusses dual property regime and need to classify assets as marital or separate)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014) (standards for appellate review of trial court findings in divorce cases)
- Barnhill v. Barnhill, 826 S.W.2d 443 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (trial court discretion in dividing marital property)
- King v. King, 986 S.W.2d 216 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (equitable division guidance; division need not be mathematical equal)