## Facts

- Husband and Wife married in 1979, separated in 1989, and remained legally married for about a decade while living apart; they had one child.
- Wife filed for divorce in 1990 but dismissed it; the parties agreed to remain married “in name only” for their child.
- Husband earned substantially more and voluntarily provided child support and other financial assistance, including insurance and education-related expenses.
- In 1999, Husband filed for divorce; the trial court granted divorce based on Wife’s inappropriate marital conduct involving deception in joint financial matters.
- Husband alleged Wife obtained a second mortgage on the marital home without his knowledge and obtained credit cards in his name, incurred significant charges, and defaulted.
- The primary dispute concerned whether debts incurred during the long separation (including the second mortgage and credit-card debts) were marital debts and how they should be allocated.

## Issues

1. Whether debts incurred by a spouse during the marriage but during a long separation are marital debts only if incurred for the parties’ joint benefit.
2. Whether the marital debts were equitably allocated when the appellate court required Husband to pay Wife’s marital debts.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court rejected a “joint benefit” test for classifying marital debt.
- The Court held that debts incurred by either or both spouses during the course of the marriage are properly classified as marital debt, even if incurred during separation and without a demonstrable joint benefit at the time.
- The Court announced a four-factor framework to guide equitable allocation of marital debts: (1) purpose of the debt, (2) which party incurred it, (3) which party benefitted, and (4) which party is best able to repay.
- Because the record was insufficient to apply these factors to the debts at issue, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for reallocation under the new framework.

## Legal Principles

- Marital-debt classification in Tennessee is temporal: debts incurred by either or both spouses during the marriage are marital debts.
- “Joint benefit” is not a prerequisite to classification; it is relevant to equitable allocation.
- Allocation of marital debt should be guided by: the debt’s purpose, who incurred it, who benefitted from it, and which spouse has the greater ability to repay.
- Trial courts retain equitable discretion, but must separate the classification inquiry (marital vs. separate) from the allocation inquiry (who pays what).

## Conclusion

The court held that debts incurred during the marriage are marital debts regardless of separation or immediate joint benefit, and it required trial courts to allocate such debts equitably using a four-factor test, remanding for a new allocation due to an inadequate record.


Alford v. Alford, 120 S.W.3d 810 (Tenn. 2003)