WPC 3XPQpIE~ b& |BB2BY f|AQn8뙓6G9J{?Κv"@c1MYs`A.|MLxP&PDAQ?>35sjeu=¨߂+[>2,e.ģli[xEw}xb'x65yݽbB7ŠЫ}nGM0cHjzlTPtٯY:h\ҷ5^aƸХAbtTڄ"O}Q͆mgLjKςW3MHoA0^ݚ1ךp? 6VF#7XϤUׁoL8Y;PRp5^6F+hvʪ@4M#/=Mfij ̐ b[;,f%rF ^{Lb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz z  W   NEb 0 B 0 D3a D- 0K AS _ 0% 0D A HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0y<) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular ;)bk1Pv C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2@$ !.8Cdd8         0  - d(|3s$ !.8Cdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3s$ !.8Cdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Cdd8     _  C8yXXdd8  @ H4CINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#CH4 #Ԉ &   March,2000Session L XyXC #CXXy#JOSEPH_BLOUNT_ԀTURNERv.GLORIAJEANWEISSTURNERXyXC  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.97D2292MariettaM._Shipley_,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199900482_COA_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember28,_2000_   AV) ` dE<|` A }        #CXy#XyX.CJudge_Swiney_,dissenting P !  #CXXyP#XyXC   ` Idissentfromthemajoritysdecisiontoaffirmandremand.Specifically,Idisagree d withthemajoritys_affirmance_ԀoftheTrialCourtsclassificationofthe_Sugartree_Ԁresidenceasmarital P property.Thebasisformydissenthereisthesameasinmydissentin_Dotson_Ԁv._Dotson_,2000WL < 688576(Tenn.Ct.App.). (    ` Themajoritysdeterminationthatthetransferofthe_Sugartree_Ԁresidencefrom  HusbandtoWifewasnotagiftisbasedupontheTrialCourtsdeterminationofthecredibilityof  WifeandofHusband.IagreewiththemajoritysholdingthattheTrialCourtisinthebestposition  toassessHusbandsandWifescredibility,andthattheTrialCourtscredibilitydeterminationis t entitledtogreatweightonappeal.Thisbeingso,Husbandstestimonythatheagreedtotitlethe ` propertyinWifesnameforthesolepurposeofprotectingthepropertyfromapossiblecreditorof L  his,asacceptedbytheTrialCourt,wasproperlyadoptedbythemajority. 8!     ` WhereIpartwiththemajorityisitsdeterminationthatthisresolvesthisquestionand #`" makesthe_Sugartree_Ԁresidencemaritalproperty.HusbandsargumenttotheTrialCourt,andtothis #L# Court,isthatheshouldbepermittedto transferthe_Sugartree_ԀresidencetoWifetoprotectitfrom $8 $ apossiblecreditor,butintheeventofadivorcetreatthistransferasneverhavinghappened.Itwas %$!% Husbandsintentionthatthistransferwouldprotectthepropertyfromapossiblecreditorof &"& Husband.Thiswasthepurposeofthedeed.Thistransferwascommunicatedtotheworldin '"' general,includingHusbandspossiblecreditor.Husbandshouldnotnowbeallowedtoarguethat (#( thetransfertoWifewasashamandtherebygivennoeffect. )$)    ` Whilenotexactlyonpoint,IbelievethisCourtsreasoninginBestv.Best,773_S.W._ \+&+ 2d260(Tenn.Ct.App.1989)isapplicable.InBest,thehusbandhadtransferredpropertytohiswife H,', priortothedivorcebecause, atthattime,mycreditwasrealbadandIhadafewtaxproblems. 4-(-C _Id.at261.Asfoundbythemajority,thereasonfortitlingthepropertyinWifesnameonlywasto  shieldthepropertyfromthethreatofalawsuitagainstalimitedpartnershipinwhichHusbandheld  aninterest. Whentheactionconcernsthepublicaswellasthelitigantsinterest,thedoctrine  assumesagreatersignificancesinceitsapplicationnotonlythwartsthewrongdoerbutavertsan t injurytothepublic.Id.InBest,thisCourtfoundthatthepropertytransferwasdonewitha ` fraudulentpurpose.WhileHusbandsconductinthiscasemaynotrisetothelevelofbeing L  fraudulent,itwasdoneforthestatedpurposeofthwartingapotentialcreditorfromcollecting 8  Husbandsdebt.Thisbeingso,Husbandis ...notentitledtoberelievedoftheconsequencesof $ t hisacts....Id. Thecourtshavenotlookedfavorablyontransferstohinderordefraudcreditors  ` ortoavoidpaymentoftaxes.Wrightv.Quillen,909S.W.2d804,812(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).In  L  Wright,thisCourtdidnotfindthatthehusbandhadcommittedfraud,butonlythatthepurposeof  8  thetransferofthepropertyfromhusbandtowifewastokeepitoutofthehusbandsname.Thisis $  theexactsituationnowbeforeus.IwouldclassifytheSugartreeresidenceasWifesseparate   propertyjustasHusbandandWifehelditouttotheworldasbeing.      ` Husband,asdidthehusbandinDotson,hassuccessfullyrecruitedboththeTrial   CourtandthemajorityofthisCourttocreatewhatcouldbecalleda sortoftransfer.Husband p takesthepositionthatifitwasacreditorofhisattemptingtocollectajudgment,thetransfertoWife \ wouldbevalidandthepropertyprotectedfromHusbandscreditor.However,ifinsteadof H Husbandscreditoradivorcethreatens,HusbandhassuccessfullyconvincedtheTrialCourtandthis 4 Courttoignorethetransferandpretenditdidnothappen.Iwouldholdthatifeitherspousepurports  p totransferpropertyasagifttotheotherspouseforthestatedpurposeofshieldingtheassetfrom  \ currentorpotentialcreditorsofthespouse,thetransferwillbegivenfulleffectinanysubsequent H divorce#CXXy #XyXCbetweenwifeandhusband.Inshort,IwouldholdthatthecourtsofthisStatewillnotbe 4 usedtofacilitateashambytreatingsuchatransferasa sortoftransferbyholdingitmaybea   transferwhenacreditorofthespousethreatensbutisnotatransferifadivorcethreatens.      ` AsIwouldclassifytheSugartreeresidenceasseparatepropertyofWife,Ibelieveit  wouldbenecessaryfortheTrialCourttoreconsideritsdivisionofwhatwouldthenbetheremaining  maritalproperty.Iwouldreverseandremandforanewdivisionoftheremainingmaritalproperty. l    `     h     ___________________________________ %0!$    `     h     D.MICHAELSWINEY,JUDGE