Kentucky Case Law Review by Topic: May 2024

Arce v. Arce, Nos. 06-CI-00182, 2023-CA-0715-MR (Ky. App. 2024)

KRS 360.040: Interest on judgments
Marital Property: division, tax liability
Remand: laches

Dated: May 10, 2024
Affirming
Not to be Published

Editor’s Note: For our summary of a separate, previous opinion issued for this case, click here.

The parties owned and maintained a variety of properties, and remained economically entwined following their 2008 dissolution. Among their shared assets, they maintained a brokerage account with an approximately $307,000 value.

Divided we fall, united we oompah.

In the years that followed, the parties made withdrawals from the brokerage account, and continued to purchase and sell co-owned properties. When Husband failed to make payment to Wife of proceeds from the sale of a property, Wife moved for enforcement of the terms of the decree, and requested interest on the amount owed. Husband countered that the parties had continued to operate as a partnership following their divorce, and that Wife’s claims were thus barred by laches. The trial court agreed, but following an appeal by Wife the matter was remanded. In the proceedings that followed, both parties were awarded payments from the other, and interest at a rate of 6% per annum was applied to payment from Wife to Husband representing her share of property taxes paid by Husband. Wife subsequently appealed.

Wife asserted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend its order to apply interest on her payment to Husband, and that the issue had not been properly and timely raised. The Court disagreed, writing:

The [trial court] was vested with authority to bring finality to the award. Based on the record and the law, we believe this authority included the application of accrued interest, if any. This is true despite the [trial court’s] apparent sua sponte award of interest on the corpus.

Wife next argued that the award of interest was improper, and that the record indicated no expectation of interest accruing on the amount she owed. The Court again affirmed.

[Wife] did not pay her half of the property taxes within 2 years of October 8, 2008, per the agreed order. Based on Hoskins and KRS 360.040(1), the [trial court] properly awarded interest on her half of the $80,000.00 in property taxes payable to [Husband]. We find no error.

Clyncke v. Clyncke, Nos. 23-CI-00013, 2023-CA-0827-MR (Ky. App. 2024)

Civ. R. 52.04
Marital Property: burden of proof, dissipation, tracing

Dated: May 17, 2024
Affirming
Not to be Published

The parties separated in 2023, following a short marriage. During the proceedings, Wife was awarded occupancy of the marital residence and farm, but when Wife later left the state, occupancy was awarded to Husband.

Prior to taking residence at the farm, Husband sought and obtained an order restricting the sale or dissipation of assets on the farm by Wife. Both parties ultimately alleged the other had dissipated assets, including farming implements and livestock, and the farm went into contract for sale.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court awarded certain items to Husband, and ordered the rest of the property assigned to the party in possession thereof at the time of the order. Husband appealed.

In his appeal, Husband argued the trial court erred when it failed to award him the full amount of his traced separate property. He asserted that evidence he had provided, including bank records and property sale documents, showed he had brought much more to the marriage than the amount assigned to him. The Court found that Husband failed, however, to identify the specific items he claimed were part of his separate, non-marital interest.

Finally, Husband argued that the trial court failed in not making a finding that Wife dissipated marital assets. But, if Husband believed the trial court failed to make specific findings, he was required to move for them. As he had not, the Court again 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.