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 non-public property had been her particular person property, and that the trial courtroom had improperly thought-about them to be a part of the marital property.
She supplied into proof an inventory of the objects claimed to be her particular person property. The sources of all of this stuff had been recognized. Some had been presents from the husband, with an outline comparable to “Mom’s Day present” from the husband. Others had been presents to her from third events, with an outline comparable to “present from Aunt Dolly for birthday.”
The husband admitted to creating such presents, and agreed, within the case of jewellery, that the present was designed for the spouse. The appeals courtroom famous that the definition of separate property included presents, and that there was nothing within the statute to exclude interspousal presents from that definition. It additionally famous that three components are essential to make a present, particularly, 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 courtroom 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 presents got here from loans from his enterprise, which had been mentioned extensively earlier within the opinion. However the courtroom held this issue to be irrelevant: “Just because the day of reckoning for the extravagance is at hand, we won’t infer that Mr. Hanover didn’t intend to make a present of all of the objects attributed to him.” Id. at 617. For that cause, it held that the objects had been certainly the spouse’s separate property.
After reviewing the opposite points within the case, the Court docket of Appeals modified the ruling of the trial courtroom, awarding these separate objects to the spouse.
This publish is a part of a sequence, Appreciation of Separate Property: The Forensic Accountant’s Full Employment Act.