Hanover v. Hanover, 775 S.W.2nd 612 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).
On this 1989 case, after 31 years of marriage, the husband was granted a divorce on the grounds of merciless and inhuman therapy. Amongst different points, the spouse argued that many items of private property have been her particular person property, and that the trial court docket had improperly thought-about them to be a part of the marital property.
She supplied into proof a listing of the gadgets claimed to be her particular person property. The sources of all of these things have been recognized. Some had been items from the husband, with an outline equivalent to “Mom’s Day present” from the husband. Others have been items to her from third events, with an outline equivalent to “present from Aunt Dolly for birthday.”
The husband admitted to creating such items, and agreed, within the case of bijou, that the present was designed for the spouse. The appeals court docket famous that the definition of separate property included items, and that there was nothing within the statute to exclude interspousal items from that definition. It additionally famous that three components are essential to make a present, specifically, intention to make a present, supply, and acceptance. On this case, there was no dispute as to supply and acceptance, however the husband argued that the requisite intent was lacking.
The appeals court docket agreed with the spouse that the proof preponderated in favor of a discovering that the husband meant to make a present. The husband argued that the couple had lived past their means, and that the funds for the purchases of those items got here from loans from his enterprise, which had been mentioned extensively earlier within the opinion. However the court docket held this issue to be irrelevant: “Just because the day of reckoning for the extravagance is at hand, we is not going to infer that Mr. Hanover didn’t intend to make a present of all of the gadgets attributed to him.” Id. at 617. For that cause, it held that the gadgets have been certainly the spouse’s separate property.
After reviewing the opposite points within the case, the Courtroom of Appeals modified the ruling of the trial court docket, awarding these separate gadgets to the spouse.
This publish is a part of a collection, Appreciation of Separate Property: The Forensic Accountant’s Full Employment Act.