Opinion ID: 1058833
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Equitable Division of Marital Property and Award of Alimony

Text: A trial court's division of marital property must be guided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-121(c). [1] This statute provides that in making an equitable division of marital property a trial court must consider all relevant factors. Although we hold that the funds themselves are not marital property that can be divided between the parties, the trial court may properly consider Husband's careless handling of those funds in distributing property that does constitute marital property. Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-121(c)(5) requires a court to consider [t]he contribution of each party to the acquisition, preservation, appreciation, depreciation or dissipation of the marital or separate property. Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-121(c)(11), a court must consider [s]uch other factors as are necessary to consider the equities between the parties. These provisions require the trial court to consider the actions of the parties throughout the course of the marriage. See Storey v. Storey, 835 S.W.2d 593, 598 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992) (looking at Husband's excessive spending during the parties' separation in considering the factors listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-121(c)(5)). The trial court specifically found that Husband was in full control of [the] money after it left the bank until it got in [the] drawer and that [h]e was the last person in control of [the funds]. The court also found that putting the money in a fruit jar and burying it in the backyard would have been better than putting it in that drawer, because a lot of things could have happened to it. These findings suggest that it was Husband's careless handling of the funds that caused their disappearance and that the trial court regarded Husband's conduct as relevant in considering the equities between the parties. Husband's careless handling of the funds could be characterized as a failure to preserve a marital asset under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-121(c)(5). See Black's Law Dictionary 1184-85 (6th ed.1990) (defining preservation as [k]eeping safe from harm; avoiding injury, destruction, or decay; maintenance ... not the creation, but the saving of that which already exists, and implies the continuance of what previously existed); see also Barker v. Barker, 66 Ark.App. 187, 992 S.W.2d 136, 138 (1999) (explaining that the trial court's division of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home was based on the Husband's failure to preserve marital assets by wasting the parties' savings). In the alternative, since Husband's careless handling of the funds affected the equities between the parties, such handling could be regarded as a necessary factor in considering those equities. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-4-121(c)(11) (2001). In this case, a remand to the trial court is appropriate to allow the trial court to consider the relevance of Husband's conduct with regard to the missing funds. On remand, the trial court may reconsider its equitable division of the marital property in light of our reclassification of the missing funds. See Langschmidt v. Langschmidt, 81 S.W.3d 741, 750 (Tenn.2002); Smith, 93 S.W.3d at 880-81. Our reclassification of the funds may also require the trial court to reconsider its award of alimony. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-4-121(a)(1) (2001) (providing that a trial court may award alimony only after the court has equitably divided the parties' marital property). Since the trial court considered Wife's $24,000 award in awarding Wife only a little bit of alimony, on remand, the court also may reconsider its alimony award. See Langschmidt, 81 S.W.3d at 750; Smith, 93 S.W.3d at 881.