Facts: Husband, a successful businessman, and Wife married in 1996. Husband filed for divorce in 2011, and the case has now reached the Court of Appeals for the third time. In the first appeal, the appellate court invalidated the parties’ prenuptial agreement because Husband failed to fully disclose his assets. In the second appeal in 2022, the Court reversed certain property classifications and remanded for redivision of the marital estate.

Husband owned several business interests. Before the marriage, he started Wedgecorp, a real estate development corporation, which was his separate property. During the marriage, Husband and his business partner formed Quality Machining Service, LLC (“QMS”) to operate a manufacturing business. Wedgecorp owned 51% of QMS, and Husband’s business partner owned the remaining 49%.

QMS operated on industrial property on Blythe Ferry Road in Cleveland, Tennessee, known as the BFR Property. Husband claimed a 50% interest in the BFR Property as a tenant in common with his business partner.

Husband and his partner took out a bank loan exceeding $1.4 million during the marriage to support the QMS’s operations, referred to as the “Campus Loan.” On remand, the trial court found that approximately $718,562 of the Campus Loan was a debt of QMS, not Husband personally. With QMS excluded from the marital estate, the trial court valued the marital estate at approximately $2.6 million, including over $900,000 that Husband had dissipated, and divided it roughly equally.

The BFR Property presented a separate issue. In 2005, Husband and Wife signed a quitclaim deed transferring an undivided one-half interest in the BFR Property to Husband and his business partner as tenants in common. Husband argued this showed Wife gifted away her marital interest in the BFR Property, making it his separate property.

Wife testified that she signed the quitclaim deed because Husband insisted she do so to help QMS obtain financing. She said Husband promised her interest would be restored later. She said she received nothing in return, did not understand the transaction, trusted Husband, and felt forced to sign.

The trial court credited Wife’s testimony. It found that Wife did not intend to permanently give away her marital interest in the BFR Property. The trial court classified the BFR Property as marital property.

The litigation was protracted and expensive. The trial court also awarded Wife $389,344.95 for pre-appeal attorney’s fees as alimony in solido. After the second appeal, it awarded Wife another $49,964 in attorney’s fees, also as alimony in solido.

Husband appealed the classification of the Campus Loan and the BFR Property. He also challenged the attorney’s fee awards.

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

Tennessee uses a dual-property system in divorce. Trial courts must first classify property as marital or separate before dividing the marital estate. Marital property generally includes property acquired by either spouse during the marriage. Separate property generally includes property owned before the marriage or acquired by gift or inheritance. Only marital property is divided in a divorce.

A business structured as a separate corporate entity is not automatically part of the marital estate unless a spouse holds a direct ownership interest or successfully pierces the corporate veil. Tennessee law also recognizes that debt incurred during the marriage is presumptively marital, but that presumption can be rebutted where the debt is tied to a separate-property interest.

The Court found that QMS could not be classified as marital property because Husband did not own QMS directly. Wedgecorp and Husband’s business partner owned QMS.

QMS is a corporate entity separate from Wedgecorp. It is not owned by Husband and consequently cannot be classified as marital property. To consider QMS as merely an increase in the value of Wedgecorp would be to improperly disregard the corporate forms of these entities.

That conclusion affected the Campus Loan. Because the debt was incurred for QMS and paid by QMS, the Court held that $718,561.63 of the Campus Loan was not marital debt:

Based on this record, the $718,561.63 debt is not marital; rather, it was incurred for the benefit of QMS and is paid on by QMS. As found by the trial court, the debt belongs to “QMS and/or Wedgecorp and [Husband’s business partner].” The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s classification of $718,561.63 of the Campus Loan as non-marital debt. We affirm the trial court on this issue.

The Court then turned to the BFR Property. A conveyance of property from one spouse to another creates a rebuttable presumption of a gift. But a valid gift requires donative intent. The spouse claiming a gift must show that the other spouse intended to make a present gift and delivered the property while relinquishing control over it.

Regarding spousal gifts, this Court has stated as follows: The burden of proving a gift is normally on the donee. However, a conveyance of property from one spouse to another creates the rebuttable presumption of a gift. In Tennessee, two elements must be present for a court to find that a valid gift has been made: (1) an intention by the donor to make a present gift; and (2) delivery of the gift, relinquishing the donor’s control and dominion over the property.

The trial court found that Wife rebutted the presumption of a gift. The Court deferred to the trial court’s credibility findings:

The trial court found that Wife was coerced into signing the deed and did not understand the meaning of the transaction. Specifically, as found by the trial court, Wife was led to believe that her interest in the BFR Property would be restored to her at a later date. The trial court clearly credited Wife’s version of events. The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s factual findings, nor does clear and convincing evidence exist to overturn the trial court’s credibility determinations.

The Court affirmed the classification of the BFR Property as marital property:

Wife’s conveyance to Husband of her interest in the BFR Property lacked the requisite donative intent for a gift. Thus, the presumption that Wife’s conveyance to Husband was a gift was successfully rebutted. We affirm the trial court’s classification of the BFR Property as marital property.

Finally, the Court affirmed the attorney’s fee awards. Attorney’s fees in divorce cases may be awarded as alimony in solido. The decision is discretionary and depends largely on the requesting spouse’s need and the other spouse’s ability to pay.

Although the fee award was large, the Court found no abuse of discretion given the length and complexity of the case, Husband’s superior financial position, and Wife’s need:

While $389,344.95 is, standing alone, a very large award of attorney’s fees, we note the length of this case, as well as the major effort Wife had to undergo to secure her share of property and support. We note further the disparity in financial status between Husband and Wife, with Wife having a great need for the award of fees and Husband the ability to pay. We discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award to Wife of $389,344.95 in pre-appeal attorney’s fees.

The Court also affirmed the later award of $49,964 in post-appeal fees:

In awarding Wife her post-appeal attorney’s fees, the trial court found that “[a]ll factors continue to weigh in favor of Wife. Wife has a great need for these fees and Husband has the ability to pay.” We discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award to Wife of $49,964.00 in post-appeal attorney’s fees.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings in all respects.

K.O.’s Comment: Three lessons stand out from this fifteen-year saga.

First, corporate form matters. If a business is owned by a corporation or LLC, the divorce court cannot simply ignore that structure because it feels equitable to do so. Here, QMS may have been created during the marriage, and Husband may have been closely connected to it, but QMS was owned by Wedgecorp and Husband’s business partner. Because Husband did not directly own QMS, and because Wife did not seek to pierce the corporate veil, QMS stayed outside the marital estate.

Second, on quitclaim deeds, the lesson is simple. If the intent is to make a gift, document it clearly. If the transfer is being done only for financing or business reasons, document that, too. Ambiguity invites litigation.

Third, on attorney’s fees, length and disparity matter. Attorney’s fees can become a major issue when one spouse has to fight for years to obtain a fair result. Tennessee courts often say that attorney’s fees should not be awarded when the requesting spouse has enough assets or income to pay them. Gonsewski is the leading example. There, the Supreme Court declined to award fees because the requesting spouse had sufficient resources after the divorce.

This case falls on the other side of the line. The litigation lasted 15 years, involved three appeals, substantial business assets, a failed prenuptial agreement, dissipation, and major financial disparity. In that setting, the Court had little trouble affirming a fee award exceeding $439,000.

Source: Ellis v. Ellis (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, June 5, 2026).

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