Tennessee case abstract on marital property definition and classification in divorce.
The husband and spouse on this Bradley County, Tennessee, have been married in 1996, and the spouse filed for divorce in 2018. The husband was a monetary advisor for UBS, and a significant shopper was the Church of God Advantages Board.
The spouse took the place that the husband’s “e-book of enterprise,” his relationship with shoppers, represented an asset that was marital property. The husband, then again, identified that his employer didn’t permit him to take this info if he left the corporate. Subsequently, he argued that it was not property, a lot much less marital property.
The trial court docket’s order addressed many points, together with the “e-book of enterprise.” In the end, the trial court docket held that it was not marital property. It was extra within the nature of future earnings, the decrease court docket held.
The spouse appealed to the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals and raised numerous points, together with the decrease court docket’s ruling as to the “e-book of enterprise.” The appeals court docket addressed this problem first. It famous that problems with this kind have been inside the decrease court docket’s discretion, and the usual of overview was due to this fact abuse of discretion.
The court docket then turned to the statutory definition of “marital property.” The spouse argued that it match this definition. The husband, then again, argued that “e-book of enterprise” was actually simply one other title for his private goodwill, which isn’t a marital asset.
After analyzing the proof, the appeals court docket concluded that the decrease court docket had not based mostly its resolution on any incorrect authorized customary or an faulty evaluation of the proof. As a substitute, it had a correct factual foundation, and was due to this fact not an abuse of the court docket’s discretion. For these causes, it affirmed the decrease court docket’s ruling.
After addressing the spouse’s different points, the Courtroom of Appeals affirmed the decrease court docket’s ruling and remanded the case for assortment of prices.
No. E2020–01123-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2022).
See unique opinion for precise language. Authorized citations omitted.