Mahaffey v. Mahaffey

Decision Date12 May 1989
Citation775 S.W.2d 618
PartiesMartha Jo MAHAFFEY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. William Raymond MAHAFFEY, Defendant/Appellee. 775 S.W.2d 618
CourtTennessee Court of Appeals

Page 618

775 S.W.2d 618
Martha Jo MAHAFFEY, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
William Raymond MAHAFFEY, Defendant/Appellee.
775 S.W.2d 618
Court of Appeals of Tennessee,
Middle Section, at Nashville.
May 12, 1989.
Permission to Appeal Denied by
Supreme Court July 31, 1989.

Knox Bingham, Bingham & Boyd, Lewisburg, for plaintiff-appellant.

R. Whitney Stevens, Jr., Stevens, Bagley & Stevens, Fayetteville, for defendant-appellee.

OPINION

KOCH, Judge.

This appeal concerns the property division aspects of a divorce decree. Both parties requested the Circuit Court for Lincoln County to dissolve their sixteen-year marriage. The trial court granted the wife a divorce and divided the marital property. The wife has appealed, insisting that the trial court erred by including the appreciation in the value of her inherited property as part of the marital estate. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the trial court.

I.

Martha Jo Cook and William Raymond Mahaffey were married in June, 1961. Mr. Mahaffey is a consulting physicist. Mrs. Mahaffey occasionally taught school but spent most of her time during the marriage as a homemaker. Their two sons, who are now over eighteen years old, play no role in this case.

The Mahaffeys' marital problems seem to stem from Mrs. Mahaffey's attitude about some real property she inherited from her father. Throughout the marriage, she insisted on keeping the property in her own name and was consistently reluctant to use the income from the property for routine family expenses. However, from 1978 to 1984, she permitted Mr. Mahaffey to both improve and farm the property, and the parties used the property to

Page 620

secure sizeable loans for the farming operations. Unfortunately, several years of bad weather ultimately brought an end to Mr. Mahaffey's farming.

Mrs. Mahaffey initially declined to use any of her resources to reduce the farm debts. She declined to sell any of the property and told Mr. Mahaffey that he should pay the farm debts since he was responsible for them. The strain of the debts took its toll. The parties had violent arguments, and Mrs. Mahaffey even accused Mr. Mahaffey of being an alcoholic. They separated in May, 1985 after a particularly unpleasant confrontation in front of Mr. Mahaffey's mother. Mr. Mahaffey remained in the Fayetteville house, and Mrs. Mahaffey moved in with her mother.

Both parties sought a divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. The trial court heard the proof in September, 1987 and granted the divorce to Mrs. Mahaffey. The parties' primary disagreement at trial concerned the status of four tracts of real property. The trial court determined that the appreciation in the value of the real property should be treated as marital property because Mr. Mahaffey had contributed to its preservation and appreciation.

II.

Mrs. Mahaffey is the only child of James B. and Martha Cook. Mr. Cook died intestate in June, 1959. The bulk of his estate consisted of farm land in Madison County, Alabama. Mr. Cook held title to most of the land in his own name except for approximately seventy acres which he held jointly with his wife.

Under Alabama law, all of Mr. Cook's property descended to Mrs. Mahaffey subject to her mother's dower interest. Mrs. Mahaffey's mother was named administratrix of Mr. Cook's estate, and the estate was settled in September, 1962--over a year after the parties' marriage. The recorded title to the property remained unchanged, but Mrs. Mahaffey and her mother decided to "hold [the property] together on a 50/50 percent each" basis. Rather than telling Mr. Mahaffey about their arrangement, they told him throughout the marriage that the "estate was unsettled."

In 1964, the Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority condemned a portion of the Madison County property for the construction of a new airport and paid Mrs. Mahaffey and her mother approximately $350,000. Following the condemnation, two tracts originally belonging to Mr. Cook remained--a 92.44-acre tract adjacent to the airport 1 and another 54-acre tract.

Mrs. Mahaffey and her mother used a portion of the condemnation proceeds to buy farm property in Limestone County, Alabama. In July, 1965, they purchased a 320-acre tract (the "north tract") 2 and in December, 1965, they purchased an adjoining 320 acre tract (the "south" tract). They held both tracts as tenants in common, and each woman received approximately $10,000 to $15,000 annually in rent from the property. Mrs. Mahaffey kept her rent money in a separate account and rarely used it for the family expenses.

The parties moved to Fayetteville in 1968. They purchased an old home using part of the condemnation proceeds. Over Mr. Mahaffey's objections, Mrs. Mahaffey insisted that the title to the house be placed in her name because "her money" had been used to purchase it. 3 They made substantial renovations to the house, and Mr. Mahaffey did much of the work himself. Mrs.

Page 621

Mahaffey bought approximately five additional lots adjacent to the house between 1970 and 1978, so that the Fayetteville holdings eventually totalled approximately thirteen acres.

Mr. Mahaffey's consulting business did not occupy all his time. In 1978, he decided to begin farming the 320 acre north tract in Limestone County. The south tract had already been leased, but Mrs...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • Wilson v. Moore
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 3 Mayo 1996
    ... ... Hardin, 689 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983), or unless they are based on an error of law. Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 775 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989) ... MR. WILSON'S RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS ...         Mr. Wilson participated in the ... ...
  • Kinard v. Kinard
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 5 Agosto 1998
    ... ... § 36-4-121(c) or is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See Brown v. Brown, 913 S.W.2d at 168; Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 775 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989); Hardin v. Hardin, 689 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983) ... THE VALUATION OF THE DRUG ... ...
  • Altman v. Altman
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 7 Abril 2005
    ... ... § 36-4-121(c) or is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Brown v. Brown, 913 S.W.2d 163, 168 (Tenn.Ct.App.1994); Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 775 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989); Hardin v. Hardin, 689 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983) ...         A division of ... ...
  • Edmisten v. Edmisten
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 13 Mayo 2003
    ... ... Hardin, 689 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983), or unless they are based on an error of law. Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 775 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) ...         After classification of the parties' property as either marital or ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • § 11.02 Transmutation by Agreement; Transmutation by Use
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property Title CHAPTER 11 Transmutation—A Change in the Character of Property After Acquisition
    • Invalid date
    ...marital property if the spouses refer to it as "their house" and do a significant amount of repair work. Tennessee: Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 775 S.W.2d 618 (Tenn. App. 1989) (very similar to Weiss). [98] See: Alabama: Harris v. Harris, 59 So.3d 731 (Ala. App. 2010). Mississippi: Bowen v. Bowen......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT