# Wright-Miller v. Miller

> Court of Appeals of Tennessee · August 5, 1998 · 984 S.W.2d 936

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526219

## Case

- **Full name:** Linda Janiece WRIGHT-MILLER, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Harvey Granville MILLER, Defendant/Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** August 5, 1998
- **Citations:** 984 S.W.2d 936; 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 537; 1998 WL 440840
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Crawford
- **Judges:** Farmer, Crawford, Highers
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526219

## Opinion text

CRAWFORD, Presiding Judge,
Western Section, concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it affirms the judgment of the trial court. However, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, which reverses the trial court’s decision concerning the division of the increase in value of the Heartland stock.
The trial court accredited the testimony of Husband’s CPA that without the consolidation of Miller’s assets with those of Heartland there was a small loss in Heartland’s book value. The proof showed that the Heartland increase in book value resulted from the consolidation of Miller’s assets with those of Heartland. While, as the majority opinion states, the parties agree that Wife contributed during the marriage to the increase in the value of the Heartland stock, I construe this to mean normal increases in value to which Wife could have been said to have lent her assistance in preserving and appreciating the stock. It does not appear that the parties contemplated the agreement to apply to an unexpected or fortuitous event, with which the Wife had nothing to do and did not in any manner participate. In Harrison v. Harrison, 912 S.W.2d 124 (Tenn.1995), our Supreme Court stated on this point
The statute does not permit the conclusion that any increase in value during marriage constitutes marital property. The increase in value constitutes marital property only when the spouse has substantially contributed to its preservation and appreciation.
Id. at 127 (emphasis in original).
I do not believe that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that any increase in value was not marital property and, therefore, would affirm the trial court’s judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526219. Public record. Not legal advice.