Kentucky Case Law Review by Topic: November 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023

Beetz v. Beetz, Nos. 18-CI-500014, 2022-CA-0344-MR, 2022-CA-0337-MR (Ky. App. 2023)

Attorney Fees
Maintenance
Marital Property: burden of proof, debts, equitable distribution, real property

Dated: December 1, 2023
Affirming
Not to be Published

As part of the parties’ divorce, Wife was awarded child support, maintenance, and a portion of her attorney fees in consideration of Husband’s greater income and actions toward Wife throughout the proceedings. The trial court also assigned a portion of the parties’ various credit card debts to each party, with the greater amount assigned to Husband due to his larger income. The trial court ordered Husband to pay arrearages for the temporary child support and maintenance he failed to pay during the pendency of the divorce.

Finally, the trial court also ordered the sale and division of proceeds of a property Husband claimed was a family gift (but was ‘purchased’ via payment of then-existing tax liens, using marital funds), and ordered the refinancing of another property and payment to Wife of half of the equity therein.

Husband appealed, arguing the trial court erred: (A) in its award of maintenance to Wife; (B) in deeming the property to be sold marital, instead of his separate property; (C) in its division of the parties’ credit card debts; and (D) in its award of attorney fees.

Nobody does chocolates like a commonwealth.

Noting its abuse of discretion standard of review, the Court rejected Husband’s appeal, and affirmed. As for his first assignment of error, Husband’s permanent maintenance was made moot by Wife’s remarriage prior to any payment thereof, so the Court’s review was limited to his temporary maintenance arrearage (reviewable only because it was incorporated into the decree; otherwise this is interlocutory and not reviewable). Based on Husband’s income and reported expenses, the Court found the trial court’s temporary maintenance award did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

As for Husband’s second assignment of error, the Court again affirmed, finding that Husband cited no evidence in the record related to a donative intent, nor did he dispute that the property was obtained during the marriage, and the tax liens thereon paid using marital funds.

The Court further rejected Husband’s third assignment of error, finding that the trial court’s assignment of the parties’ credit card debts did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Citing Wife’s own struggles during the pendency of the divorce, and Husband’s larger income, the Court affirmed.

[Husband] next argues the family court abused its discretion when it divided the parties’ credit card debt. There is no statutory presumption that debts incurred during a marriage are marital or non-marital in nature, nor is there a presumption they be divided equally or in the same proportion as marital property. Neidlinger v. Neidlinger, 52 S.W.3d 513, 522-23 (Ky. 2001), overruled on other grounds by Smith v. McGill, 556 S.W.3d 552 (Ky. 2018) (citations omitted).

Husband’s assignments of error concerning the refinancing of property were mooted by subsequent order. And finally, the Court again affirmed the trial court’s award of attorney fees. The Court found that Husband misstated the amount of fees awarded to Wife, that Husband’s own conduct contributed to the costs of litigation, and that the trial court acted within its “broad discretion” in their award to Wife.

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.