In a 13-page decision handed down recently by the Tennessee Supreme Court, a wage-earning husband gets to keep $1.7 million in stock. His homemaker wife gets nothing.

The reason given by the court: the husband didn't do anything more than hang on to the stock, which was given to him by his father. The court ruled that the husband didn't "substantially contribute" to either the stock's preservation or appreciation in value and therefore doesn't have to share it with his wife.

What isn't clear is the effect of the decision.

Some say it's precedent-setting, that it will substantially affect stay-at-home spouses and that it goes against the laws created to protect homemakers.

Others contend that the ruling was made within existing guidelines and that it's too early to tell if the decision will substantially affect how property is divided in divorce cases.

The case is a departure from state laws that automatically considered the homemaker's contribution to a marriage, said Marietta Shipley, a former circuit judge for 16 years and president of the Mediation Group of Tennessee.

"The fact that she ran a household generally gives her enough of a quality reason to be entitled to it," Shipley said. "This does set a precedent."

State laws and amendments make distinctions on what is separate property such as inheritances, and property acquired before marriage from marital property.

For instance, Shipley said that if a wife owns a rental property and she collects the rent and pays the property taxes on her own without using that money in her marriage, it's not considered marital property. But if the husband trims the hedges and mows the lawn, he substantially contributed to the asset and is therefore entitled to a share.