Bookout v. Bookout

Citations: 954 S.W.2d 730; 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 137

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; February 28, 1997; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the divorce case of Joel Frank Bookout v. Pamela Williams Bookout, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee addressed the trial court's judgment concerning the division of marital property. The trial court had granted the wife a divorce, awarded her custody of the children, established child support, set visitation rights for the husband, and divided the marital estate. The primary issue on appeal was whether the property division was equitable. The appellate court modified the trial court's judgment but affirmed it as modified.

The court's review followed Tennessee's Rule 13(d), which allows for de novo examination of civil case findings, with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise. The trial court valued most marital assets at over one and a half million dollars and allocated approximately 75% of the property to the wife. The appellate court found sufficient evidence supporting the chancellor's detailed findings of fact.

The appellant contended that there is a presumption favoring equal division of marital assets. However, the court clarified that while marital property is presumed to be equally owned, there is no strong presumption for equal division. Instead, it is the court's responsibility to ensure an equitable division based on factors outlined in T.C.A. 36-4-121(c).

T.C.A. 36-4-121(c) outlines factors for dividing the marital estate, including marriage duration, the parties' ages and health, vocational skills, earning capacities, contributions to each other’s education, and each party's ability to acquire future assets. The statute also considers the value of separate property, economic circumstances at the time of division, tax consequences, and any other factors that promote equitable consideration. In the current case, key factors such as contributions to marital property and roles as homemakers or wage earners are emphasized, given the absence of separate property and equal economic standings of the parties.

The trial court noted that both parties, married since 1980, are in their late 30s, healthy, and hold professional licenses—Mrs. Bookout as a physical therapist and Dr. Bookout as a dentist. Both have pursued professional training during the marriage and have the potential for significant earnings, with Dr. Bookout's capacity increasing while Mrs. Bookout's has slightly decreased. The court's discretion in property division is highlighted, emphasizing that an equitable division does not require equality, and the overall fairness is assessed through the final results of the division.

The parties have accumulated a marital estate exceeding $1.5 million after liabilities. Both have shown strong self-sufficiency and potential for future asset acquisition. During their professional training, Dr. Bookout's parents provided housing and tuition support, while Mrs. Bookout worked, financed her education, and supported the family. After returning to Chattanooga in 1985, Dr. Bookout started his dental practice at his parents' location, while Mrs. Bookout initially worked for another employer before establishing her own practice in the same building. Since 1985, she contributed approximately 82% of the household income, while Dr. Bookout reduced his work from five or six days a week to three days before their separation. Mrs. Bookout became the primary caregiver for their two children, born in 1990 and 1992, and they employed a helper for her. Dr. Bookout's leisure activities were noted to have contributed to their separation. 

The court referenced Batson v. Batson while considering statutory factors from T.C.A. 36-4-121(c), suggesting they favored Mrs. Bookout due to her substantial contributions to both her husband's education and the marital property, as her income significantly exceeded his. Dr. Bookout claimed that his contributions were not adequately considered and argued he was unfairly penalized for marital fault. However, the court's remarks about his leisure time were intended to compare contributions rather than assign fault, and there is no evidence that he was penalized for the marriage's breakdown. The court clearly evaluated both parties' contributions in its decision-making process.

The husband asserts he contributed to the wife's physical therapy practice while she did not support his dental practice. Evidence shows the husband assisted in her business, but the court determined that neither party substantially contributed to the establishment of their respective practices, implying the husband's contributions were minimal. The wife did not contest this finding and similarly did not claim any contributions to the husband's practice. The husband argues that his parents significantly impacted their marital property, suggesting that without them, the wife would not have benefited. However, the court found that contributions from his family were essentially gifts to both parties, lacking merit for further claims. 

The husband claims his family provided a building for the wife's practice rent-free, but the lease required her to cover insurance, taxes, and maintenance costs, negating the assertion of no charge. Despite this, the lease's value may be viewed as a gift to the marital estate. The wife made improvements to the property but was not guaranteed reimbursement, having waived any claims against the husband's parents. The court awarded the home, valued at $405,000, and most furnishings to the wife, considering her needs for the family. 

However, the court recognized that awarding child support alongside property that fulfills household obligations could result in an unfair distribution. To rectify this, the judgment was modified to provide a more equitable outcome, adjusting the assets to award the husband approximately half the value of the home. This adjustment led to the decision to give the husband municipal bonds valued at $177,297 and $25,000 in cash instead of the original property award to the wife.

In the event of bond maturity, cash reduction, or disposal, the husband is entitled to any remaining bonds, along with an immediate cash payment equaling the difference between the bond values at the court's judgment and the remaining bonds, plus a previously set amount of $177,297.00. Additionally, the husband will receive $25,000.00 in cash, which can be sourced from the wife's choice. The overall marital estate allocation to the husband is intended to increase by $202,297.00 as of the final judgment date. The trial court's judgment is affirmed with modifications, and the case is remanded for a consistent judgment entry. Costs are shared equally between the parties. 

It is noted that no single statutory factor holds greater weight than others; each must be evaluated individually. A lease provision states that upon divorce, the Lessors may reimburse Pamela Bookout for her investment in the property, deducting depreciation from the purchase price.