Kentucky Case Law Review by Topic: August 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022

Greenfield v. Greenfield, Nos. 19-CI-00014, 2021-CA-1117-MR (Ky. App. 2022)

KRS 403.190
Maintenance
Marital Property: equitable distribution

Dated: August 5, 2022
Not to be Published
Affirming

As part of their dissolution, the parties agreed to the valuations of assets related to Husband’s business and properties including the marital home, which was situated on land owned by Wife prior to the marriage.

Wife was awarded $25,000 as her separate, pre-marital interest in the value of the marital home, with the remaining $86,000 equity therein deemed marital property. The parties’ outstanding tax debt -attributable to Husband’s business- was assigned 2/3 to Husband and 1/3 to Wife. And Husband was assigned $10,200 for medical bills and other debt, and Wife $5,088. Other assets not exceeding $10,000 in value were assigned amongst the parties, and Wife was ordered to pay Husband an $18,877 equalization payment.

Husband was temporarily ordered to pay $700 in monthly maintenance, which he claimed he could not afford to pay (and did not, for several months). Finding Husband had failed to separate his business expenses from his income, and noting Wife’s limited employability, the trial court ordered Husband to pay $500 in monthly maintenance to Wife for 60 months.

In his appeal, Husband argued the trial court failed to divide the parties’ marital property and liabilities in “just proportions” as required under KRS § 403.190(1). While Wife had been restored pre-marital property including her $25,000 interest in the marital home, he had received a reduced share of the marital estate.

Delineating the difference between ‘equitable’ and ‘equal,’ the Court wrote:

The Kentucky Supreme Court has unequivocally rejected the presumption that marital property should be divided equally, stating: “the courts have a legislative mandate to divide marital property in accordance with the standards set out in the statute. It is significant to us that the statutes do not mention ‘presumptions’; and in the absence of this, we are of the opinion the legislative mandate is binding upon us and that presumptions in the division of marital property should not be indulged in at all.” Herron v. Herron, 573 S.W.2d 342, 344 (Ky. 1978). Simply put, KRS 403.190 “does not dictate that marital property be divided equally.” Quiggins v. Quiggins, 637 S.W.2d 666, 669 (Ky. App. 1982).

Noting that Husband’s business debts were longstanding, and related to his non-payment of expenses and taxes, the Court affirmed the trial court’s allocation of marital property and debts.

In his second assignment of error, Husband argued that the trial court abused its discretion in both its temporary and subsequent maintenance orders, which he claimed failed to account for a drop in his income or Wife’s comparatively low monthly expenses. Acknowledging Husband’s impediments to higher earnings, including a shoulder injury and ailing mother who required supervised care, the Court nonetheless affirmed, finding that Wife’s frugality should not be weighed against her, and that Husband had undeclared income.

I like my case law like I like my bourbon… by the barrel.

Doepel v. Doepel, Nos. 19-CI-00125, 2021-CA-0567-MR (Ky. App. 2022)

Civ. R. 55.01 (default judgment)

Dated: August 19, 2022
Not to be Published
Affirming

Following Wife’s 2019 filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage, Husband was eventually served by sheriff’s deputy nearly a year later, after numerous unsuccessful attempts. Husband continued to claim he never received service, and Wife filed a motion for default judgment in January 2021. As part of her motion, Wife requested that the trial court divide the parties’ marital property and debts, and that the marital home be sold and proceeds therefrom split. The trial court granted Wife’s motion for default judgment.

Husband subsequently filed a motion to set aside the trial court’s default judgment, arguing he had not received summons, the motion, or the order granting it. “Counsel for [Husband] claimed that he discovered the dissolution action and default judgment by accident while reviewing CourtNet." Husband’s motion was denied.

Husband appealed, arguing again that he received no service of summons, the motion, or the trial court’s order. “[H]owever, he filed no affidavit disputing the sheriff’s deputy’s proof of service and there was no request for him to testify at the hearing,” the Court countered, after noting the three elements that “must be present” to set aside a default judgment:

A party seeking to have a default judgment set aside must show good cause; i.e., the moving party must show “(1) a valid excuse for the default; (2) a meritorious defense to the claim; and (3) absence of prejudice to the non-defaulting party.”

Noting Husband’s failure to provide either (1) or (2), above, and Wife’s ongoing attempts to sell the marital home (constituting a prejudice or (3), above, were the judgment vacated), the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

---

Additional Reading:

Can an individual be eligible for their ex-spouse’s Social Security benefits? Read more from USA Today.

ERISA wears many faces and has many roles. For a reminder of some of the safeguards therein we don't often talk about on this blog, check out this recent 6th Circuit Opinion on multi-employer pension funds.

Blog Posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.