Kentucky Case Law Review by Topic: December 1, 2021 through February 28, 2022

The Bluegrass State may have only had two cases in this Case Law Review, but its legislature did manage to draft a voter/district map during that time. (DO NOT bring that up around my Ohio Case Law Review.)

Coffey v. Coffey, Nos. 19-CI-00020, 2021-CA-0319-MR (Ky. App. 2022)

Marital Property: division, tracing, valuation

Dated: January 7, 2022
Not to be Published
Affirming

Following the parties’ 2020 dissolution, Wife appealed citing four assignments of error. Wife first argued that the court erred when it awarded Husband a $49,500 nonmarital interest in the parties’ home, asserting a $22,000 interest should’ve been assigned instead.

Husband produced, however, bank statements and other documents showing the initial deposit of $49,500 from his retirement account, along with home and farm purchases from his checking account that exceeded the amount of nonmarital interest assigned to him. The Court thus affirmed.

Wife further argued the trial court erred in its valuation of the parties’ home, and should have placed its value at $170,000. Husband had argued its value was $130,000, consistent with the tax assessment. The trial court instead utilized the amount of the original mortgage, determining Wife’s value to be too high, and Husband’s too low. The Court affirmed, writing “[c]ontrary to [Wife’s] assertions, we cannot say the [trial] court’s determination and valuation of the residence was arbitrary as it was supported by substantial evidence, namely the mortgage.”

The Court similarly overruled Wife’s remaining two arguments, that the trial court erred in its marital property division of the parties’ cattle, and that the trial court abused its discretion in its division of marital property. Finding such assertions unsupported by the record or Wife’s appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decisions.

Byrdwell v. Byrdwell, Nos. 16-CI-00111, 2020-CA-1292-MR (Ky. App. 2022)

Marital Property: source of funds

Dated: January 28, 2022
Not to be Published
Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding

Following the trial court’s 2020 findings of fact and conclusions of law, Husband appealed on a number of issues related to child custody, the presiding judge’s decision not to recuse, the division of marital property, and an award of attorney fees to Wife. Matters related to child custody, such as the parties’ mental health and Husband’s complaints about the judge and a court-appointed expert, are not included in this case summary and fall outside the purview of this blog and its case summaries.

In his second argument, Husband asserted the trial court erred in its award of attorney fees to Wife, claiming the assignment relied on his gross, rather than net income. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the Court noted “it [might] have been prudent” for the trial court to rely on gross income, but that the disparity between the parties’ respective incomes rendered this “harmless,” and that attorney fees would still have been awarded.

In his tenth argument, Husband asserted the trial court failed to award him his nonmarital interest in the parties’ residence. Husband claimed $5,471.35 in proceeds from the sale of his nonmarital condominium were used for the purchase of the parties’ home, and argued further that increases in equity after the parties’ separation should have been awarded to him.

The mortgage for the condominium was paid with marital funds for around five years. It is clear that the proceeds of the sale of the condominium went toward the purchase of the marital home, but it is unclear how much of those proceeds are nonmarital. Had [Husband] provided proof of how much of the condominium’s mortgage he had paid prior to the marriage, his argument might be more persuasive.

As above, the Court found Husband failed to cite to the record any evidence he produced as to how much he paid toward the mortgage on the parties’ home after the trial court’s decree, and thus affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Husband also argued that the trial court’s imputing a minimum wage to Wife, as opposed to earnings more akin to that of a dental hygienist (her employment prior to marriage), was in error. The Court disagreed, and affirmed. In his final argument, Husband asserted that the trial court’s assignment of marital debts was an abuse of discretion. The Court again disagreed, noting that Husband had accumulated tens of thousands of dollars in debt subsequent to the parties’ disclosures and prior to the date of decree.

In addition, Husband argued the trial court had erred when it found he had dissipated marital assets when he -following a status quo order- liquidated one retirement account and drew from another. Despite Husband’s assertion that these funds were used to cover expenses for both parties, the Court found that he did not cite to the record sufficient evidence to bolster his claim, and affirmed.

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.