Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Family‑law appeal questions whether children's best interest justified awarding family farmland to wife
Summary
An appellate panel heard argument over whether a family court abused its discretion by awarding a 58‑acre parcel (a 'Century Farm' parcel long held by one family branch) to the wife on equitable distribution grounds, emphasizing the children's proximity to grandparents and continuity. Petitioner argued familial history and unique property character should have weighed heavily; respondent said the family court acted within broad discretion.
Mark Kelly, representing Justin Tennant, argued the family court made a serious mistake by awarding a long‑family‑owned 58‑acre parcel to his ex‑spouse rather than preserving the property within the petitioner’s familial ownership, noting the parcel is effectively a "doughnut hole" surrounded by relatives’ land and has been in the family for more than 100 years. Kelly said the court improperly prioritized the children’s best interests in an equal‑distribution inquiry where the statutes do not list that factor for ownership allocation.
Opposing counsel (Ms. Burdett) told the panel the family court applied the statutory framework, found the property could not be divided in kind, and permissibly exercised discretion to assign the parcel to the wife subject to a buyout payment, giving weight to the children’s ages (about 6 and 8 at briefing) and the family’s stated desire to keep the children near grandparents. The appellate panel questioned whether children's best interests can be a proper factor in equitably dividing property (as opposed to temporary possession of a marital home) and whether the family court abused its discretion. The case was submitted after argument.
