Thomas v. Thomas

377 S.E.2d 666 (1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

W was a successful sales representative for a computer company in Florida when, she met H, who was her regional manager in Atlanta. H left his family and moved into a condominium. From June 1981 until the marriage in July 1983, W gave H almost $39,000 so that he could meet his increased obligations resulting from the separation from his family. In the summer of 1982, W terminated her employment from the computer company and moved to Atlanta. She and H located a house under construction and decided to purchase it. The actual purchase was made by W. W made a down payment of $75,000 and got a first mortgage of $185,000. A month after they separated in November of 1986, the house was sold for $351,000. It appreciated in value during the marriage in the amount of about $91,000. Through monthly payments, made mostly during the marriage, the mortgage was reduced from $185,000 to $177,000 at the time of the sale. The monthly payments between November 15, 1982, the date of purchase, to the date of the marriage in July 1983, were made by W. In 1981 and 1982, H had earned stock options as part of his employment compensation. The options were exercised during the marriage at times when the value of the stock was less than its value immediately prior to the marriage. The stock was purchased with a combination of marital funds, a loan from his father, and a loan against his life-insurance policies. The stock was sold prior to the divorce, and a profit in excess of $30,000 was realized. H and W separated in November 1986. The court reasoned that since W contributed $38,967 to H prior to their marriage, then the equitable and rational approach would be to cause an equal amount in non-marital assets of H to be treated as marital assets since they were expended for his benefit and to satisfy his legal obligations. Therefore, $38,967 of his non-marital assets would be treated as a marital asset for purposes of distribution. To the extent that marital assets were used in exercising that option, that would subject the proceeds of such stock sale to that equitable division. In any event, because of the consumption of $38,967 premaritally, for the benefit of H then of those total stock sales, $38,967 would be subject to equitable division. The trial judge awarded the wife almost all the proceeds from the sale of the house and awarded her what amounted to one-half the proceeds of the stock sale, conceded by the court to be, in part, separate property of the husband. This was done in order to restore to her a portion of sums which she had given to H before the marriage. H appeals.