Domestic (Family Law) Cases
Valuation of Property
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Barnes v. Barnes, No. M2022-00328-COA-R3-CV, p. 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2023).
Decisions regarding the value of marital property present questions of fact. Chase v. Chase, 670 S.W.3d 280, 302 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022); Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478, 486 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). The parties bear the burden of presenting competent evidence of value with the court determining value based upon relevant evidence. Sykes v. Sykes, 647 S.W.3d 596, 609 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021); Powell v. Powell, 124 S.W.3d 100, 104 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). When the evidence of value is conflicting, “the trial judge may assign a value that is within the range of values supported by the evidence.” Chase, 670 S.W.3d at 287 (quoting Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 231 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)). “[A] trial court’s decision with regard to the value of a marital asset should be given great weight on appeal. A trial court’s decision with respect to the valuation of a marital asset will be presumed to be correct unless the evidence preponderates otherwise.” Chase, 670 S.W.3d at 302 (citation omitted).
Greene v. Greene, No. M2022-01171-COA-R3-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2023).
The valuation of a material asset is a question of fact. Melvin, 415 S.W.3d at 852. Therefore,thetrialcourt’svaluations“areentitledtogreatweightonappealandwill not be second-guessed unless they are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.
Mikhail v. Mikhail, No. M2021-00500-COA-R3-CV, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2023).
Before the court may fashion an equitable division of the marital property, it must “place a reasonable value on each piece of property.” Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478, 486 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “The value of a marital asset is determined by considering all relevant evidence regarding value.” Wallace v. Wallace, 733 S.W.2d 102, 107 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). We will not question a court’s valuation so long as it is “within the range of the evidence submitted.” Id. We presume the trial court’s factual determinations regarding the valuation of a marital estate are correct unless the evidence preponderates against them. Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 231 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Hill v. Hill, No. E2021-00399-COA-R3-CV, p. 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2023).
The valuation of a marital asset is a question of fact. Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 231 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “All marital property shall be valued as of a date as near as possible to the date of entry of the order finally dividing the marital property.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121(b)(2)(A) (Supp. 2022). The classification of property as either separate or marital is also a question of fact “to be determined in light of all relevant circumstances.” Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 295 S.W.3d 240, 245 (Tenn. 2009).
Prichard v. Prichard, No. W2022-00728-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2023).
After classification of the parties’ property, the trial court “should place a reasonable value on each piece of property subject to division.” Green, 2021 WL 1343569, at *4 (quoting Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478, 486 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)). On the subject of valuation of the parties’ property, we have explained as follows:
The parties themselves must come forward with competent valuation evidence. When valuation evidence is conflicting, the court may place a value on the property that is within the range of the values represented by all the relevant valuation evidence. Decisions regarding the value of marital property are questions of fact. Accordingly, they are entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be second-guessed unless they are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Id. (quoting Owens, 241 S.W.3d at 486). We have further explained that “[t]he value placed on marital property should, as near as possible, reflect the value of the property on the date that it is divided.” Id. (quoting Owens, 241 S.W.3d at 487).
Cooke v. Cooke, No. E2022-00049-COA-R3-CV, p. 7-8 (Dec. 27, 2022).
The valuation of a marital asset is a question of fact. It is determined by considering all relevant evidence, and each party bears the burden of bringing forth competent evidence. See Wallace v. Wallace, 733 S.W.2d 102, 107 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). If the evidence of value is conflicting, the trial judge may assign a value that is within the range of values supported by the evidence. See Ray v. Ray, 916 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); Wallace v. Wallace, 733 S.W.2d at 107. On appeal, we presume the trial judge’s factual determinations are correct unless the evidence preponderates against them. See Jahn v. Jahn, 932 S.W.2d 939, 941 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 231 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (other internal citations omitted).
Chase v. Chase, No. E2021-01300-COA-R3-CV, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2022).
With respect to a trial court’s valuation of marital assets, this Court has elucidated:
The valuation of a marital asset is a question of fact. It is determined by considering all relevant evidence, and each party bears the burden of bringing forth competent evidence. See Wallace v. Wallace, 733 S.W.2d 102, 107 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). If the evidence of value is conflicting, the trial judge may assign a value that is within the range of values supported by the evidence. See Ray v. Ray, 916 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); Wallace v. Wallace, 733 S.W.2d at 107. On appeal, we presume the trial judge’s factual determinations are correct unless the evidence preponderates against them. See Jahn v. Jahn, 932 S.W.2d 939, 941 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 231 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Mangum v. Mangum, No. E2021-00285-COA-R3-CV, p. 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2022).
In Neamtu v. Neamtu, No. M2008-00160-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 152540 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2009), no appl. perm. appeal filed, this Court discussed our standard of review with respect to the valuation of marital assets. We stated:
Once property has been classified as marital property, the court should place a reasonable value on property that is subject to division. Edmisten v. Edmisten, No. M2001-00081-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 21077990, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2003). The parties have the burden to provide competent valuation evidence. Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 231 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). When valuation evidence is conflicting, the court may place a value on the property that is within the range of the values presented. Watters v. Watters, 959 S.W.2d 585, 589 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). Decisions regarding the value of marital property are questions of fact, Kinard, 986 S.W.2d at 231; thus, they are not second-guessed on appeal unless they are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. [Smith v.] Smith, 93 S.W.3d [871,] 875 [(Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)].
Robinson v. Robinson, No. E2020-01535-COA-R3-CV, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2022).
Once a trial court has classified property as either marital or separate property, “it should place a reasonable value on each piece of property subject to division.” Owens, 241 S.W.3d at 486 (citing Davidson v. Davidson, No. M2003-01839-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 2860270, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2005); Edmisten v. Edmisten, No. M2001-00081- COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 21077990, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2003)). To allow for this determination, both parties must provide competent valuation evidence. Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 231 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citation omitted). “When valuation evidence is conflicting, the court may place a value on the property that is within the range of the values represented by all the relevant valuation evidence.” Owens, 241 S.W.3d at 486 (citation omitted). “On appeal, we presume the trial judge’s factual determinations are correct unless the evidence preponderates against them.” Kinard, 986 S.W.2d at 231 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Jahn v. Jahn, 932 S.W.2d 939, 941 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)).
