 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mahan v. Mahan11/15/2000
). Husband filed his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on May 19, 1998, one effect of which was to shift much of the marital debt assigned to him by the court back to Wife because she was also liable on those joint debts. Wife then filed her own motion to alter or amend on June 3, 1998, alleging that Husband's bankruptcy increased her own debt by more than $27,000, and requesting that the final decree be amended to award her alimony and the marital home. Both requests were based on the need to defray the sudden burden of Husband's previously assigned debts.
The trial court heard arguments on both motions, as well as other petitions not relevant here, on December 22, 1998, and granted Husband's motion to change some language in the original order. The court refused to award Wife alimony, and she does not appeal that decision. Regarding the marital home, the court reminded the parties that it had been awarded to Husband because he had been assigned the marital debt. The court then found that "it would not be equitable for [Husband] to be free from debts and receive all equity from the marital home," and awarded the home, which had approximately $7,000 equity, to Wife.
Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion by "punishing" him for exercising his right to discharge his debts in bankruptcy by divesting him of the marital home. Wife asserts that because the bankruptcy affected the previous division of property, the court was within its discretion to modify the award.
When making a division of marital property, a court is to consider several factors in order to achieve an "equitable" division. See Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 36-4-121. One purpose of the trial court's decisions regarding marital property is to divide the property accumulated by the efforts of both parties in a fair manner. See Hausmann v. Hausmann, No. 01A01-9702-CH-00092, 1997 WL 672649 at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 1997) (no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). Another purpose is to provide each party with sufficient property to meet that party's future needs. See id. The trial court had attempted to be fair to both parties in its original division of property and distribution of debts. Husband's bankruptcy disrupted the division the court had made by shifting the debts onto Wife.
When the trial court revisited the order, it properly reexamined the property division in light of the changed circumstances, and attempted to, again, make an equitable distribution of the property. See Grissim, 637 S.W.2d at 875. The $7,000 equity in the home only partially offset the more than $27,000 in debts for which Wife suddenly became liable. We affirm the trial court's award of the marital home to Wife.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the awards of custody and marital property to Wife, and find no reversible error in the trial court's admission of disputed evidence. This case is remanded for such further proceedings as may be necessary. Costs are taxed to the appellant, Patrick Ryan Mahan, for which execution may issue if necessary.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|