Home Family Law Husband Answerable for Gold Cash Lacking Throughout Divorce

Husband Answerable for Gold Cash Lacking Throughout Divorce


Tennessee case abstract on divorce.

Douglas D. Dailey v. Violet L. Dailey

The husband and spouse on this Blount County, Tennessee, case had been married for about 40 years, and had divorced and remarried in 1978.  In the course of the marriage, the husband had bought gold cash.  Throughout one ten-year span, he had bought about 400 ounces.  At his deposition, the husband testified that the full spent had been a couple of half million {dollars}, however at trial, he toned down the estimate.  The spouse testified that he had given estimates of $750,000 and 1,000,000 {dollars} as the full worth.

The gold cash have been stored in a gun protected.  When the events’ son (who was 32 on the time of trial) was in his teenagers, there was proof that he had taken among the cash out of the unlocked protected after the husband allegedly destroyed among the son’s collectible playing cards.  The son testified that he took 2 or 3 cash, however the husband testified that the son took nearly 50 ounces.

The spouse testified that after the 1978 divorce, she took 3 to five cash to pay authorized charges, however the husband alleged that she had taken about 100 ounces.

Finally, the husband began storing the gold in a protected deposit field, and he estimated that there have been 200 ounces within the field.

In 2016, their church had a prophecy that President Obama would refuse to depart workplace, and in consequence, they wouldn’t be capable of get the gold out of the financial institution.  On the spouse’s request, they moved the gold into the protected room of their house.

Late within the marriage, the husband lived within the downstairs portion of the house (with the gold), and the spouse lived upstairs.  The spouse admitted that she often got here to the decrease stage to get meals from the freezer.  There was dispute as as to if the spouse had entry to the important thing to the protected room.

In regards to the time he filed for divorce, he found the gold was lacking, however he by no means contacted regulation enforcement.

Most points have been resolved, however a trial was held earlier than Choose Tammy M. Harrington on the problem of what occurred to the gold.  After listening to testimony for 2 days, Choose Harrington concluded that the gold was in any respect related instances within the husband’s management, and that he was accountable if it was lacking.  Due to this fact, the husband was ordered to pay the spouse half the worth of the gold.  The courtroom held that the lacking gold was price $600,000, and ordered the husband to pay the spouse $300,000.  Dissatisfied with this final result, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals.

The appeals courtroom started by noting that in a non-jury case, overview is de novo, with a presumption of correctness of the trial courtroom’s factual findings.

The trial courtroom had made a discovering that the husband was not credible, based mostly upon his cavalier angle and inconsistent and imprecise testimony.

The appeals courtroom characterised the husband’s case as that he had not taken the gold.  Sooner or later through the marriage, each the spouse and son had taken some gold.  Due to this fact, he surmised, they will need to have taken the gold this time.  The appeals courtroom, nevertheless, identified that the husband had no proof of the alleged theft.  It additionally famous that through the marriage, the gold was marital property, and any taking by the spouse wouldn’t be a theft.

The appeals courtroom agreed that the husband had management of the gold in any respect related instances.  There was no proof that the spouse had a key to the protected room.  Moreover, the husband had by no means talked about the alleged theft to regulation enforcement, and even within the divorce filings.

For these causes, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed the decrease courtroom’s ruling.  It awarded the spouse her lawyer’s charges on attraction and despatched the case again for a calculation of these charges.

No. E2019-00928-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2020).

See unique opinion for precise language.  Authorized citations omitted.

To study extra, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here