Kentucky Case Law Review by Topic: February 1, 2026 through March 31, 2026

Hazelwood v. Hazelwood, No. 19-CI-00287, 2025-CA-0632-MR (Ky. App. 2026)

KRS 403.190: contributions of each spouse
Marital Property: equitable division

Dated: February 20, 2026
Affirming
Not to be Published

United we stand, divided are our gas receipts.

Wife began working at Toyota in June 1997, and the parties were married on August 26, 2000. They were divorced on February 10, 2021. Wife worked consistently at Toyota throughout the entire marriage. The parties stipulated that Wife’s retirement account at the time of the dissolution of the marriage was $262,913.76, minus an outstanding loan balance of $15,397.12, leaving the value of the account at $247,516.64.

Wife testified at trial that she began contributing to her retirement account when she started her employment in 1997, but she was unable to recall how much she contributed and she had no documentation of her account contributions.

Wife also testified that her drive to work was approximately 90 minutes each way. She said that she handled all of the finances during the marriage. She said that Husband’s employment was generally seasonal, so he wasn’t always able to work. When he did work, he contributed only $300 per week toward the family finances and Wife covered the remainder. Husband had also been incarcerated at various times during the marriage. Wife testified that she paid most of the bills during marriage.

The trial court ruled that Wife had been unable to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any portion of the retirement account was her non-marital property. Thus, the entire value was marital in nature. The trial court then ordered the retirement account to be divided 60% to Wife and 40% to Husband. It justified this decision by finding that Wife alone had contributed to the account, Wife commuted three hours daily during the marriage, and Wife was responsible for handling the parties’ finances during the marriage.

Husband appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in not dividing the account equally.

The Court noted that the disposition of property in a dissolution of marriage action is governed by the following principles:

KRS 403.190. This statute reads, in relevant part:

(1) In a proceeding for dissolution of the marriage . . . , the court shall assign each spouse's property to him. It also shall divide the marital property without regard to marital misconduct in just proportions considering all relevant factors including:

(a) Contribution of each spouse to acquisition of the marital property, including contribution of a spouse as homemaker;

(b) Value of the property set apart to each spouse;

(c) Duration of the marriage; and

(d) Economic circumstances of each spouse when the division of property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to the spouse having custody of any children.

(2) For the purpose of this chapter, "marital property" means all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage …

"Thus, in dissolution of marriage actions, a trial court's division of the parties' property requires a three-step process: (1) the trial court first characterizes each item of property as marital or nonmarital; (2) the trial court then assigns each party's nonmarital property to that party; and (3) finally, the trial court equitably divides the marital property between the parties." Travis v. Travis, 59 S.W.3d 904, 908-09 (Ky. 2001) (internal footnotes omitted).

The Court held that the trial court committed no error, and that it conducted an analysis of why it deemed a 60/40 division of the retirement account to be equitable. The Court stated “a ‘just’ division is not necessarily an equal division…. The trial court has broad discretion to divide marital assets, and its determination of what constitutes a just division will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.” The fact that the trial court considered factors such as Wife’s commute, the division of household labor, and who paid the bills, was not an abuse of discretion.

Anderson v. Anderson, No. 23-CI-00017, 2024-CA-1138-MR (Ky. App. 2026)

KRS 403.190
Marital Property: equitable distribution, house, retirement benefits, valuation (home)

Dated: February 27, 2026
Affirming
Not to be Published

The parties were married in 2015, and two children were born during the marriage. Husband filed for dissolution in February 2023. A hearing was held before the Domestic Relations Commissioner (DRC) in August 2023. Prior to the hearing, the parties reached agreement regarding vehicles and personal property.

The parties purchased a residence for $200,000.00 before they were married. The deed and the mortgage were solely in Husband’s name. Wife obtained loans which were used towards the downpayment. During the DRC hearing neither party knew when the loans were paid off, or the amounts paid prior and during the marriage. The trial court found that Wife had provided $27,000 as a downpayment for the home using two loans she obtained.

Relying on an appraisal, the trial court determined that the marital residence had a value of $280,000.00. It found all equity therein to be marital, and ordered the difference between the remaining mortgage balance and $280,000.00 to be divided equally between the parties.

Husband had a 401k retirement account which had a balance of $23,095.38 at the time of the marriage and a balance of $341,503.91 at the time of the decree. Wife had a retirement account through the Teacher’s Retirement System of Kentucky valued at $48,446.49.

The trial court determined that the $23,095.38 in Husband’s 401k account was nonmarital, and that the remaining $318,408.53 was marital. The trial court also determined that the entirety of Wife’s retirement account was marital and ordered the difference between the marital portion of Husband’s 401k and Wife’s retirement account to be divided equally between the parties.

On appeal, Husband took issue with the trial court’s division of the parties’ marital residence and retirement accounts. The Court stated:

In dividing property in a divorce proceeding, the circuit court must follow a three-step process: (1) the trial court first characterizes each item of property as marital or nonmarital; (2) the trial court then assigns each party’s nonmarital property to that party; and (3) finally, the trial court equitably divides the marital property between the parties. Travis v. Travis, 59 S.W.3d 904, 909 (Ky. 2001).

There is a statutory presumption that all property acquired during the marriage is marital. KRS 403.190(3).

Husband argued on appeal that the trial court erred in valuing the home at $280,000.00, not characterizing the home as his nonmarital property, and dividing the equity in the home equally rather than proportionally based on the parties’ incomes.

The Court found that the trial court did not err in relying on Wife’s appraisal of the home. Husband had an opportunity to submit his own appraisal, and he failed to do so.

The Court also rejected Husband’s argument that the marital residence should have been characterized as his nonmarital property because it was acquired before the marriage and deeded solely to him. It held that the fact that Wife’s name was not on the deed was not dispositive, citing Basham v. Basham, 710 S.W. 3d 1, 7 (Ky. App. 2025).

The Court held that the trial court did not err in the division of the marital residence, and that the trial court’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The trial court did not characterize any portion of the home’s equity as nonmarital. Husband did not provide any substantial evidence that he made any nonmarital contributions. The parties intended for the residence to be marital when it was purchased, and both parties contributed to the property’s equity during the marriage. Finally, the trial court in particular considered Wife’s contributions as a homemaker, which is a factor to be considered under KRS 403.190(1)(a).

Regarding the retirement accounts, Husband’s arguments were again rejected by the Court. Although Husband contended that Wife’s KTRS account has benefits that “cannot be quantified or divided by the courts,” Husband presented no evidence at trial to support this contention, nor was a request made to introduce such evidence. The Court likewise rejected Husband’s assertion that the trial court erred in equally dividing the marital portion of his 401(k), finding that his greater earnings during the marriage did not entitle him to a greater share, and such unequal division would “run contrary to KRS 403.190 as it is the responsibility of the [trial] court to divide all marital property in just proportions.”

Mewes v. Mewes, No. 23-CI-00930, 2025-CA-0384-MR (Ky. App. 2026)

Marital Property: Gift; Tracing

Dated: February 27, 2026
Affirming
Not to be Published

The parties were married in November 2000 in Illinois. In 2003 Wife filed for divorce while both parties were still living in Illinois, and then she moved to Kentucky. The parties reconciled and Husband followed Wife to Kentucky. The Illinois divorce was dismissed and the marriage remained intact until the parties again separated in August 2023. Wife filed this divorce action in October 2023.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the marital residence was Husband’s non-marital property, or marital property.

Husband owned property in Illinois prior to the marriage. He sold that property when the parties reconciled and Husband moved to Kentucky to be with Wife. The proceeds from the sale of the Illinois property were kept in a separate account. Husband testified that he used those funds to purchase and remodel the marital residence. The parties never carried a mortgage or any other related debt on the marital residence. Husband paid the full purchase price of $167,000 at an auction on June 20, 2008.

Wife’s name was included as a grantee on the deed, however the Court found that this was not a controlling factor in determining whether a gift occurred:

Neither title nor the form in which property is held determines the parties’ interests in the property; rather Kentucky courts have typically applied the ‘source of funds’ rule to characterize property or to determine parties’ nonmarital and marital interests in such property. Sexton v. Sexton, 125 S.W.3d 258, 265 (Ky. 2004).

After the house was purchased, the couple spent almost a year remodeling the home. Wife testified that she picked out what cabinets and countertops she wanted, and Husband bought them. Wife testified that she did not question where the money for any of the remodeling originated, as she was a stay-at-home mother to the parties’ young children at the time. Wife did some of the painting in the home, and Husband did most of the other remodeling work himself which included replacing floors and sheetrock, rewiring rooms, building new walls and closets, and plumbing work. Husband paid for all the expenses of the remodeling.

At trial, Husband offered copies of deeds related to the Illinois property to trace the source of funds used to purchase and remodel the marital residence. There was no dispute that Husband kept the funds separate from marital funds. The trial court determined that Husband had overcome the presumption that the residence was marital property.

The Court explained the concept of “tracing” as “tracking property’s ownership or characteristics from the time of its origin to the present.” Although Wife argued that Husband produced insufficient documentation, there was no dispute that the source of funds to purchase and remodel the marital residence came from Husband’s nonmarital funds. The Court found Husband’s tracing evidence to be sufficient.

Wife next argued that Husband gifted her half ownership of the marital residence because her name was placed on the deed. The Court held that the trial court correctly analyzed this question using the following factors: (1) the source of funds used to purchase the item; (2) the intent of the donor at the time as to its intended use, (3) the status of the marriage at the time of transfer; and (4) whether there was a valid agreement that the property was to be excluded from the marital property. O’Neill v. O’Neill, 600 S.W.2d 493, 496 (Ky. App. 1980).

Based on these factors, the trial court determined that Husband did not intend to gift Wife half the ownership of the marital residence. The source of funds used to purchase the marital residence was Husband’s non-marital property. Although Wife testified that Husband told her it would be her house too, Husband gave credible testimony that he always meant for the house to be solely his property, and he kept the funds used for the home entirely separate for several years while the parties searched for a house. The third factor is the status of the marriage. Husband testified while the parties had reconciled after the 2003 divorce filing, he never forgot how it felt to come home to an empty house. He also testified that he only reconciled and moved to Kentucky so that he would not be away from his son. Finally, the parties never had a conversation about what would happen to the property if the parties ever divorced, or if one of them were to pass away.

The trial court ultimately determined that these factors weighed against finding that Husband had gifted part of the marital residence to Wife. This decision was affirmed.

Finally, Wife contended that the trial court erred in failing to assign a specific value to the marital residence. Husband did physical work in remodeling the home. Wife also did some physical work. Wife argued that she should receive some of the increase in equity from this labor based on her contribution to the marital home of raising the children and taking care of the home while Husband worked.

The Court held that no marital interest was acquired as the result of the work of Wife as a homemaker. Further, Wife provided no testimony from an appraiser that her painting or maintenance of the home were “significant activities… which contributed to the increase in value” of the property. KRS 403.190(1)(a). There was no evidence of increased value due to any work performed by Wife.

The trial court determined that it was not necessary to assign a particular value to the home, because Husband provided the funds and the work that went into increasing the value of the home. The Court found this to be sufficient.

In summation, the Court stated “Sympathy may pull for [Wife] to some extent. But the courts cannot make decisions based on sympathy.” The order of the trial court was 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.