Luplow v. Luplow, 450 S.W.3d 105 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014).

Premarital Property Remained Separate Property Regardless of Couple Securing Line of Credit score

Mary Lisa Gaston Luplow and Martin Luplow had been married in 1983 and had two youngsters.  In 2010, the spouse filed a grievance for divorce in Davidson County, Tennessee, alleging inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable variations.  The husband filed a counterclaim, alleging the identical grounds.  After varied pretrial orders, a trial was held in 2012 earlier than Choose Phillip R. Robinson, and a ultimate judgment was entered.  Each events appealed to the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals.  The husband appealed the classification of 1 piece of actual property, which the trial courtroom had discovered to be the spouse’s separate property.

After addressing different points, the appeals courtroom turned to the standing of the true property which the spouse had inherited when her father died.  The husband argued that this property had transmuted right into a marital asset as a result of they took out a line of credit score towards the property, and since he had paid a portion of the property taxes throughout the pendency of the divorce.  The decrease courtroom had discovered that the property had not transmuted, and the appeals courtroom famous that it is a factual willpower that has a presumption of correctness.  It examined the proof and concluded that the proof didn’t preponderate towards the trial courtroom’s findings.

The husband additionally argued that he had paid the taxes on the parcel one yr, however the Courtroom of Appeals additionally held that this issue was inadequate to transmute the property.

Regardless that the appeals courtroom agreed that this property was the spouse’s, it didn’t agree with the disposition of the road of credit score secured by the property.  The decrease courtroom had discovered that the road of credit score towards this property was solely the spouse’s duty.  However since each events had incurred this debt, the Courtroom of Appeals held that it was a joint obligation.

For extra dialogue of this case, see TN Husband Must Pay for Workplace Malfeasance in Divorce.

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

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here