Facts: The day after the parties married, Husband closed on purchasing a property where the parties lived throughout their two-year marriage. This is known as the Wade Springs property.

To make the down payment on the Wade Springs property, Husband obtained a HELOC on his existing home. Both the sales contract and warranty deed for the Wade Springs property were in Husband’s name only. Also, the HELOC on Husband’s existing home was only in Husband’s name, and Wife had no obligations on that loan.

Husband testified that he and Wife began looking for a home shortly after they were engaged, a year before they were married. He testified they selected the Wade Springs home together and intended to sell their existing homes and live there together.

Throughout the marriage, Husband continually refused to put Wife’s name on the deed to the Wade Springs property and refused to open joint accounts with Wife. Husband testified the decision not to make her a joint owner was intentional.

Wife testified that she helped build a shop on the property and helped with other maintenance. However, Wife admitted the increase in the value of the home during the marriage was because of market forces.

The trial court classified the Wade Springs property as Husband’s separate property because it was acquired in exchange for property Husband owned before the marriage. The Court found that Wife’s contributions could be easily quantified at $13,708.60, for which Wife was awarded a judgment against Husband.

Wife appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

The division of the marital estate begins with classifying the parties’ property as either separate or marital property. This is necessary because separate property is not part of the marital estate; thus, separate property is not subject to division.

Marital property is generally everything acquired by either or both spouses during the marriage. Separate property is generally anything that is not marital property. Separate property can also be property acquired during the marriage but in exchange for property owned before the marriage.

Still, property that began as separate property can be converted into marital property by commingling or transmutation. Transmutation occurs when separate property is treated in such a way as to give evidence of an intention that it become marital property.

The Court found no error in the trial court’s analysis:

It is undisputed that the parties retained separate assets and financial accounts throughout the course of the marriage. For example, upon selling her home that she owned prior to the marriage, Wife kept the net proceeds of $186,000 in an account separate from Husband throughout the course of the marriage. Likewise, Husband kept his bank accounts and earnings separate from Wife throughout the course of the marriage.

*     *     *     *     *

Wife testified specifically as to the contributions she had made to the improvement of the Wade Springs property—painting, flooring, ceiling fans, and landscaping—but conceded that the increase of the home’s value was likely due to market forces. She also noted that her name was on the utilities, but Husband paid them. Husband paid for the construction of a shop on the property but testified that Wife had paid for electricity to be run to it, offering into evidence checks and invoices with exact totals of those and other contributions.

Wife further testified that she wanted her name on the deed for the Wade Springs property, but Husband continually refused to add her. It is undisputed that Wife’s name has never been on the deed to the Wade Springs Property, and Husband testified that he never intended to put her name on the deed.

*     *     *     *     *

As for transmutation, there is a rebuttable presumption of marital property created when separate property is treated in such a way as to give evidence of an intention that it become marital property. Wife clearly expressed her intent for the Wade Springs property to become marital. However, the presumption here is rebutted by evidence of circumstances or communications clearly indicating an intent that the property remain separate.

The trial court found that not only did Husband not evidence any intention to make a gift of this separate property to the marriage, he acted in such a way by refusing to put her name on the title despite requests, to evidence his intention that the property remain his separate property.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

K.O.’s Comment: (1) Curiously, the opinion makes no mention of the four most common factors used when analyzing transmutation:

• use of the property as the marital residence (check!),
• maintenance and management of the property by both parties (check!),
• jointly titling the property (nope!), and
• using the credit of the nonowner spouse to improve the property (unclear!).

Why? Did the parties not argue those factors?

(2) I also find it curious that Wife didn’t argue that the marital appreciation was marital property, instead conceding that all appreciation was market driven. The increase in value of separate property can be classified as marital property if the nonowner spouse contributed substantially to the asset’s preservation and appreciation. The law does not require financial contributions from the nonowner spouse to satisfy this criteria.

Source: Tate v. Tate (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, March 25, 2024).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.