Wade v. Wade, 897 S.W.second 702 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994)
This 1994 case concerned quite a lot of completely different items of property which the court docket was required to categorise as separate or marital. These had been owned by the husband previous to the wedding, and the husband argued that that they had remained his separate property.
One vital issue was the truth that, after being married in Tennessee, the events had moved to the Philippines, for the reason that spouse had been supplied a place in a faculty there. Initially, the husband was not employed within the Philippines, and the couple lived on the spouse’s earnings. Critically, the appeals court docket famous that the husband was not required to make use of any of his separate property for dwelling bills. Due to this fact, the court docket concluded, the property continued to understand because of the spouse’s assist. For that reason, the property have been correctly thought of marital in nature.
The court docket did concede that the case was uncommon, for the reason that spouse didn’t make any contribution straight attributable to the property in query. Nevertheless, the court docket distinguished prior circumstances corresponding to Sherrill v. Sherrill, 831 S.W.second 293 (Tenn. App. 1992) on the grounds that the spouse’s assist had considerably contributed to the preservation of the asset.
The court docket additionally famous that, later within the marriage, the spouse had labored for a brokerage agency, and through this time, she had made trades of the shares in query and suggested the husband when to purchase, promote, and maintain.
The court docket additionally addressed the husband’s curiosity in a enterprise partnership by which he had invested after the wedding. The funds for this funding had been from the sale of a residence he had owned previous to the wedding, and people funds had been deposited into the husband’s separate checking account. Nevertheless, the appeals court docket, after reviewing the report, concluded that the husband had not adequately traced these funds, and that the report supported the decrease court docket’s conclusion that the asset was marital property.
This put up is a part of a collection, Appreciation of Separate Property: The Forensic Accountant’s Full Employment Act.