| Dissipation of marital property occurs when one | | | | typical during the marriage is essential. Through a |
| spouse uses marital property frivolously and | | | | request for Production of Documents or |
| without justification for a purpose unrelated to the | | | | subpoena, the attorney should request checking |
| marriage and at a time when the marriage is | | | | account statements, with cancelled check copies, |
| breaking down1. The factors that Tennessee | | | | along with credit card statements for the two |
| courts most frequently consider when determining | | | | years before the marital problems surfaced. |
| whether a particular expenditure or transaction | | | | Watch for: 1) ATM and counter check cash |
| amounts to dissipation include: 1) whether the | | | | withdrawals that were not typical during the |
| expenditure benefited the marriage or was made | | | | marriage; 2) travel and meals expenditures |
| for a purpose entirely unrelated to the marriage; | | | | especially if the spouse in question uses a |
| 2) whether the expenditure or transaction | | | | company expense account from his employer; 3) |
| occurred when the parties were experiencing | | | | new loans around separation time with no |
| marital difficulties or were contemplating divorce; | | | | apparent need for the proceeds; and 4) |
| 3) whether the expenditure was excessive or de | | | | purchases of cars, jewelry, gifts of personal |
| minimis; and 4) whether the dissipating party | | | | nature, etc. that indicate a paramour. |
| intended to hide, deplete, or divert a marital asset. | | | | An organized table, along with properly referenced |
| The timing of the expenditure or transaction is | | | | copies of checks, receipts, deposition excerpts, |
| extremely relevant. Expenditures that were | | | | etc. is a powerful tool to use in presenting the |
| typical or commonplace during the marriage will be | | | | prima facie case. The total balance of dissipated |
| difficult to prove as dissipation, especially when | | | | funds should be credited as a marital asset in the |
| the other spouse acquiesced in them2. | | | | column of the alleged dissipating spouse as if the |
| After the party alleging dissipation in Tennessee | | | | funds still existed and the non-dissipating spouse |
| establishes a prima facie case that marital funds | | | | will receive an offset of another marital asset. |
| have been dissipated, the burden shifts to the | | | | 1Altman v. Altman, No. M2003-02707-COA-R3-CV, |
| party who spent the money to prove that the | | | | 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 207, at *5-6(Tenn. Ct. |
| challenged expenditures were appropriate. | | | | App. Apr. 7, 2005) (perm. app. denied). |
| Constructing an exhibit containing a list of what | | | | 2Halkiades v. Halkiades, No. |
| one spouse alleges are highly questionable, | | | | W2004-00226-COA-R3-CV, 2004 WL 3021092, at |
| frivolous and wasteful expenditures that were not | | | | *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. |
