Harrison v. Harrison, 912 S.W.second 124 (Tenn. 1996).

Dramatic Appreciation in Property Worth Was Results of Freeway Coming By means of and Not Partner’s Substantial Contribution; Subsequently Property Curiosity Remained Separate

Mr. Harrison and his brother every inherited a half curiosity in a forty five ½ acre tract of land that was used for farming. On the time Mr. Harrison married Mrs. Harrison, the worth of the land was $7,000.  After an interstate was constructed throughout the tract of land, the worth of the land elevated considerably.  Parts of the tract had been offered or leased to Days Inn, Shoney’s, Waffle Home, and Exxon.  Mr. Harrison used the proceeds of the gross sales and leases of the tract to buy a marital residence which he and Mrs. Harrison owned collectively.

When the events divorced, the tract of land was valued at $1,361,750.  Each events admitted that the only real explanation for the rise within the worth of the land was the development of the interstate.  In its division of property, the trial court docket held that the tract of land was marital property and awarded Mrs. Harrison $340,437.50 for half of the worth of Mr. Harrison’s curiosity. The Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals held that the property was not marital property, however however awarded the substantial appreciation of the property throughout the size of the wedding to Mrs. Harrison.  Mr. Harrison appealed the holding to the Tennessee Supreme Courtroom and claimed that Mrs. Harrison was not entitled to the worth of the appreciation of the land as a result of the tract was separate property to which Mrs. Harrison made no substantial contribution. The Tennessee Supreme Courtroom agreed with Mr. Harrison and held that the appreciation worth of property is just thought of marital property when a partner considerably contributes to the preservation and appreciation of the property.  The drastic appreciation of the land was due solely to the development of the interstate, so the Courtroom held Mr. Harrison’s curiosity within the land to be separate property that was not topic to division with Mrs. Harrison.

This put up is a part of a sequence, Appreciation of Separate Property: The Forensic Accountant’s Full Employment Act.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here