Facts: After more than 10 years of marriage, Husband and Wife were declared divorced on stipulated grounds. The trial court referred the division of marital property to a special master.

Their most valuable asset was the marital residence.

Husband worked in the pest control business. Wife worked at a grocery store and a daycare center. Husband earned substantially more than Wife. Thus, he paid most of the marital expenses.

That changed after Wife’s parents decided that Wife should quit her job, further her education, and change careers. They offered to pay off the remaining mortgage balance so Wife could return to school and work part-time. Husband and Wife agreed. Wife’s parents then paid the remaining mortgage balance of $99,000. Although Wife then quit her job and enrolled in school, she completed only one semester and decided to withdraw during her second semester.

Wife cited Husband’s alcohol addiction as the reason she was forced to abandon her education. During her first semester, Husband admitted he was an alcoholic. Over the next several months Husband was admitted to various rehabilitation centers for intensive treatment. Wife said she quit school to support Husband in his time of need. She conceded she never returned to school because she “wanted to do something else.”

By agreement, the marital residence was sold during the pendency of the divorce. Wife argued she was entitled to a $99,000 credit before any division of the remaining sale proceeds. She said she planned to use the money to reimburse her parents for the mortgage payoff. Still, she admitted the payment was intended as a gift to her and Husband and wasn’t supposed to be paid back. Wife’s mother agreed. As she recalled, the parties never discussed repayment. And there was no documentation showing any payment conditions or expectations.

The special master concluded there was no evidence that Husband dissipated marital funds, nor were there evidence that Wife had to drop out of school because of Husband’s addiction. The special master recommended that the marital estate be divided equally.

Wife filed objections to the special master’s report.

The trial court approved and adopted the special master’s findings and recommendations.

Wife appealed.

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

Tennessee trial courts have broad discretion to fashion an equitable division of the marital estate “in proportions as the court deems just.”

Wife first argued that Husband had dissipated substantial marital assets.

“Dissipation” refers to wasteful spending that reduces the marital property available for equitable distribution. It involves intentional or purposeful conduct by a spouse who uses marital property, frivolously and without justification, for a purpose unrelated to the marriage and at a time when the marriage is breaking down. Thus, dissipation differs from discretionary spending, which is spending typical of the parties’ expenditures throughout the marriage. Dissipation is often intended to hide, deplete, or divert marital property.

The Court found Wife’s evidence to be lacking:

Wife had the burden of proving that dissipation occurred. She argues that Husband dissipated marital assets by spending on alcohol and resultant medical treatments, paying rent after moving out of the marital home, and using marital funds to prepare the marital home for sale…. She presented no evidence that the cited expenditures were atypical of spending during the marriage or that they were intended to hide, deplete, or divert funds from the marital estate. Both parties purchased alcohol during the marriage. There was no evidence that Husband’s alcohol purchases or rent payments were excessive.

Wife also argued she was entitled to a larger share of the sale proceeds based on her parents’ payoff of the mortgage debt. The Court found no error in the trial court’s result:

The financial contribution of Wife’s parents certainly contributed to the preservation and appreciation of the marital estate. It weighs in Wife’s favor. But it does not change the overall analysis. Husband made significant financial contributions as well. It is undisputed that he paid the vast majority of the marital expenses throughout this marriage.

Because the trial court’s findings were supported by material evidence, the Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Source: Jakobik v. Jakobik (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, April 14, 2025).

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