Facts:  Husband, age 61, and Wife, age 68 and in poor health, were married for two years.  In the divorce, the trial court awarded Wife 65.4% of the marital estate, while Husband received 34.6%.  Husband appealed, arguing this was not an equitable division.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

[W]e find that the trial court’s division of marital assets, including the marital home, was equitable.  [Wife] came into the marriage with significantly more assets.  Also, [Wife] does not have the ability to work or the ability to acquire significant assets in the future.  On the other hand, [Husband] came into the marriage with few assets, has the ability to work, and has a significantly higher possibility of acquiring future assets.  Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s division of marital assets.

This is yet another example of the highly particularized, fact-specific inquiry required in domestic relations cases.

Harden v. Harden (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2010).

Information provided by K.O. Herston, Tennessee Divorce Lawyer.