 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Oakley v. Oakley8/10/2001
This appeal arises from a divorce action. Husband and Wife divorced after 22 years of marriage. Both had received property by bequest during the marriage. Husband had received stocks and securities, real property, and Company, which he owned and operated. Wife received property which she subsequently sold. The proceeds of these sales were deposited in a separate investment account after first passing through a marital checking account and were later used to buy Condo. The trial court specifically found that Wife had not substantially contributed to appreciation of stocks and securities, but awarded her 25% of their appreciation. The appreciation of Husband's real property was found to be marital property, as well as the entire value of Company. Wife's Condo was found to be separate property. We affirm in part, reverse in part, modify and remand.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed in part; Reversed in part; Modified; and Remanded
David R. Farmer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W. Frank Crawford, P.J., W.S., and Holly K. Lillard, J., joined.
OPINION
In 1997, Patsy Oakley filed a Complaint for Divorce against James Oakley, her husband of twenty-two years. Ms. Oakley had been a homemaker for the duration of the marriage, though she was involved in the buying and selling of antiques on an irregular basis. Mr. Oakley was the owner and operator of Oakley Frames, a framing business. The couple had two children, one being a minor at the time of the divorce.
At the time the Complaint for Divorce was filed, the couple owned various assets. In addition to Oakley Frames, Mr. Oakley owned a substantial stock portfolio and two residential properties. Mr. Oakley had inherited most of these assets in 1986 upon the death of his mother. Ms. Oakley owned a condominium in Florida. This property had been purchased in July, 1997, with money from a Merrill Lynch account. This account contained funds Ms. Oakley had inherited from her mother and aunt. However, Ms. Oakley had made a down payment for her condo from Merrill Lynch funds which she initially placed into a joint marital checking account.
The trial court found that the appreciation of Mr. Oakley's two residential properties and Oakley Framers were marital property. In addition, the court found Ms. Oakley was entitled to 25% of the appreciation of her husband's stock portfolio. Ms. Oakley was awarded her Florida condominium as separate property. In addition, Ms. Oakley was awarded $375 per month in alimony in futuro, $1000 per month for 48 months as rehabilitative alimony, and $65,000 in alimony in solido. This appeal followed.
The issues, as we perceive them, are as follows:
I. Did the trial court err in awarding Ms. Oakley both alimony in futuro, rehabilitative alimony and alimony in solido of $65,000?
II. Did the trial court err in its division of marital property through its award to Ms. Oakley of 25% of Mr. Oakley's stocks and securities, its classification of the appreciation of several real properties in Memphis and Oakley Framers in its entirety as marital property, and its finding that a Florida condominium recently purchased by Ms. Oakley was separate property?
To the extent that these issues involve questions of fact, our review of the trial court's ruling is de novo with a presumption of correctness. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Accordingly, we may not reverse the court's factual findings unless they are contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Randolph v. Randolph, 937 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Tenn. 1996); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). With respect to the court's legal
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|