Cutsinger v. Cutsinger, 917 S.W.2nd 238 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).
Mr. Cutsinger owned a chiropractic apply as a sole proprietorship. He started the apply two years earlier than he married. Days after the wedding, Mrs. Cutsinger started working on the apply as a licensed nurse. Mr. Cutsinger later turned severely unwell with pores and skin most cancers and was compelled to depart his apply for a yr. Throughout Mr. Cutsinger’s absence, Mrs. Cutsinger stored the enterprise open by doing bookkeeping and acquiring different chiropractors to serve the apply’s shoppers. About two years after Mr. Cutsinger turned unwell, the events separated, and Mr. Cutsinger bought the apply for $130,000. The acquisition worth mirrored $62,000 for gear, $13,000 for the commerce identify and goodwill, $13,000 for a covenant to not compete, $18,000 for accounts receivable, and a $24,000 session price. When the events divorced, the trial court docket divided the worth of the apply as marital property, however excluded from this worth the quantities paid for the commerce identify and goodwill and the covenant to not compete. The trial court docket held that the worth of the apply was $104,000 and awarded Mrs. Cutsinger a 30% curiosity within the buy worth of the chiropractic apply. The $31,200 award included the worth of the appreciation of the apply. Mr. Cutsinger appealed the trial court docket’s resolution to divide the apply as marital property and argued that Mrs. Cutsinger introduced no proof that the worth of the apply appreciated in the course of the marriage.
The Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals agreed with Mr. Cutsinger and held that the appreciation worth of the chiropractic apply was Mr. Cutsinger’s separate property. Though Mrs. Cutsinger efficiently proved that she made a helpful contribution to the apply, she didn’t current proof that detailed the worth of the enterprise previous to the wedding. Mrs. Cutsinger’s testimony that the apply elevated from round 5 sufferers per day at first of the wedding to round forty per day on the finish of the wedding was not ample to show a rise within the worth of the apply. The court docket discovered that it couldn’t be “conclusively inferred” that the enterprise appreciated in worth simply because it serviced extra shoppers. The attraction, although, was not an entire loss for Mrs. Cutsinger. The court docket held that 47.73% of the apply’s $62,000 price of kit was marital property as a result of it was bought collectively by Mr. and Mrs. Cutsinger in the course of the marriage. Whereas Mrs. Cutsinger didn’t obtain any of the appreciation worth of the apply, she was in the end awarded half of the worth of the gear bought in the course of the marriage, which totaled $15,106.30.
This publish is a part of a collection, Appreciation of Separate Property: The Forensic Accountant’s Full Employment Act.
To study extra, go to When Professionals Divorce in Tennessee: Valuing Professional Practices.