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.
Leave a Reply