[11] The analysis in Hayes has been followed in more recent decisions from this Court. See Dover v. Dover, No. E2019-01891-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 7224368, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2020); Lewis v. Lewis, No. W2019-00542-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 4668091, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2020); Carter v. Browne, No. W2018-00429-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 424201, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2019). In Dover, the husband owned a home prior to the marriage, and the associated mortgage was paid off approximately three years into the marriage.
The analysis in Hayes has been followed in more recent decisions from this Court. See Dover v. Dover, No. E2019-01891-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 7224368, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2020); Lewis v. Lewis, No. W2019-00542-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 4668091, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2020); Carter v. Browne, No. W2018-00429-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 424201, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2019). In Dover, the husband owned a home prior to the marriage, and the associated mortgage was paid off approximately three years into the marriage.
Nonetheless, despite the deficiencies in Wife's Rule 7 table, we will attempt to "soldier on" to address the merits of Wife's appeal. See Carter v. Browne, No. W2018-00429-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 424201, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2019) (exercising its discretion to consider the merits of the appeal despite an appellant's failure to comply with Rule 7 to consider the narrow issue of the classification of property); see also In re Jada C.H., No. W2011-02542-COA-R3-JV, 2012 WL 4086120, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2012) ("This Court has previously held that it may choose to 'soldier on' to decide the merits of a case when either the trial court or parties fail to follow the rules of this Court." (internal citations omitted)).
Significant to this case, a spouse's earnings are marital property, regardless of whether they are deposited into a joint or separate bank account. See Wade v. Wade, 897 S.W.2d 702, 716 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994); see also Cohen v. Cohen, 937 S.W.2d 823, 833 (Tenn. 1996); Wright v. Wright, No. W2018-02163-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 1079266, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2020) (expenditure of marital funds "was sufficient to transmute the entirety into marital property"); Carter v. Browne, No. W2018-00429-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 424201, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2019) (mortgage "frequently paid" with marital funds); Givens v. Givens, No. E2016-00865-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 4339489, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2017) (husband spent "significant amounts of marital income on paying off and remodeling [the property]"); Liner v. Liner, No. M2010-00582-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 1420883, *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 13, 2011) (considering the fact that "[t]he mortgage and utilities for the home were paid out of [a] joint account"); Daniel v. Daniel, No. M2006-01579-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 3202778, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2007) (finding transmutation where "[t]he mortgage, insurance, and taxes on the [ ] property were paid with the rental proceeds that had been deposited into a joint bank account held by the parties"); Davis v. Davis, No. 03A01-9708-CH-00381, 1999 WL 83948, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 1999) (affirming marital classification when there was "insufficient proof to substantiate" the husband's claim that he purchased the property with funds given to hi
Accordingly, our court has classified separately owned real property as marital property when the parties agreed that it should be owned jointly even though the title was never changed, or when the spouse owning the separate property conceded that he or she intended that the separate property would be converted to marital property.Carter v. Browne, No. W2018-00429-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 424201, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Feb. 4, 2019) (quoting Hayes v. Hayes, No. W2010-02015-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 4936282, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Oct. 18, 2012)); see also Cox, 2017 WL 6517596, at *4 ("An asset separately owned by one spouse will be classified as marital property if the parties themselves treated it as marital property.") (quoting Fox v. Fox, No. M2004-02616-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 2535407, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Sept. 1, 2006)). In the present case, although husband has identified some factors weighing in favor of a finding of transmutation, he did not show that "the parties agreed that it should be owned jointly," id., nor did wife concede that she ever intended that the property would be converted to marital property.