- 9 -
mentioned in the MDA because “It was her demand that she be given
that payment of $35,000 instead.”
The Supreme Court of Tennessee in Self v. Self, supra at
363-364, stated:
Obviously, great care should be exercised by counsel
and trial courts in crafting decrees. The decree
should reflect the court’s findings with regard to the
circumstances of the parties, the purpose or expected
results of the relief granted, and the specific
benefits granted to and obligations imposed upon the
respective parties. In addition to the rights and
obligations of the parties with respect to each other,
the liability for taxes, the rights of creditors, and
other significant consequences may depend upon the
preciseness of the language employed in the decree.
Construction by the courts of uncertain and ambiguous
language is a poor substitute for careful articulation.
Much litigation in this Court results from failure of negotiating
parties to be precise in drafting the terms of marital
agreements. This case is an example of that type of litigation.
Though the payment reflected an unequal division of property
in Tulay’s favor, there is no requirement that marital property
in Tennessee be divided equally in order for the division to be
equitable. See Norman v. Norman, 2005 WL 2860274, 2005 Tenn.
App. LEXIS 687 (Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2005); see also Bookout v.
Bookout, 954 S.W.2d 730, 731 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). There are 11
statutorily prescribed factors to be considered. Tenn. Code Ann.
sec. 36-4-121(c). For example, when dividing property, a court
may take into consideration “The tangible or intangible
contributions by one party to the education, training or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011