Facts: Husband and Wife divorced. Wife accused Husband of domestic violence. Wife removed 12 firearms from the marital residence after the domestic violence incident and stored them with her brother.

Wife testified that most firearms were Husband’s separate property but several were acquired during the marriage. Wife testified that she was “terrified” of the firearms being returned to Husband and asked the trial court to sell the firearms and award the proceeds to Husband.

At first, Husband made a list of firearms from his memory. Later, Husband explained that his son, his brother, and Wife each possessed some of his guns, as he was currently prohibited from possessing them himself. Husband eventually identified 18 firearms he owned, three of which he admitted were purchased during the marriage.

The trial court divided the marital property such that Wife received 63% and Husband received 37% of the marital estate. While all the firearms were ultimately awarded to Husband, the trial court classified 10 of the 18 firearms as marital property, including the three Husband admitted purchasing during the marriage, and the 10 “marital” firearms were factored into the overall division of marital property. The remaining eight firearms were classified as Husband’s separate property.

Husband appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s classification of marital property.

Tennessee courts must equitably divide marital property. Marital property generally includes all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage when the complaint for divorce is filed. Separate property includes property acquired by a spouse before the marriage.

Property should not be included in the marital estate unless a party can prove it is marital property. Separate property cannot be included in the marital estate.

The Court found that Wife did not prove that all but eight of Husband’s firearms were marital property:

Here, Husband testified that he owned the majority of the firearms prior to the marriage. Wife also admitted that most of the firearms were Husband’s separate property. Although a receipt for the Daniel Defender AR15 was the only proof of purchase entered into evidence, Husband admitted that the Daniel Defender AR15, the Arms AR15, and the Heckler & Koch 9mm handgun were purchased during the marriage. Having failed to establish when the remaining firearms were purchased, Wife, as the nonowner spouse, was unable to prove that the remaining firearms were marital property. As such, the trial court had no authority to make an equitable division of the property.

The trial court’s classification of the Ruger GP-100 .357 mag revolver, the Remington Model 12a .22 caliber pump rifle, the Iver Johnson .410-gauge single shotgun, and the J.C. Higgins 12-gauge single shotgun as marital property is therefore reversed, for lack of proof that these firearms were purchased during the marriage. We also note the trial court’s failure to classify the .410-gauge J.C. Higgins shotgun and the .22 caliber derringer of unknown make. As no proof was presented to establish that these firearms were purchased during the marriage, they should also be classified as Husband’s separate property.

The Court reversed the trial court’s division of property and awarded the firearms Husband claimed he owned before the marriage to Husband as his separate property.

K.O.’s Comment: This case illustrates an important point that is sometimes overlooked because of the statutory presumption that property acquired during the marriage is marital, namely that the party asserting that property is marital bears the burden of proof. Unless that burden is met, property cannot be included in the marital estate.

Similarly, the party claiming that property is separate property also bears the burden of proof on that issue.

Source: Taylor v. Taylor (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, October 1, 2024).

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