Priest v. Priest, No. 2016-CA-001270-MR (Ky. App. 2017)
Court of Appeals Makes a Plea to the Kentucky Supreme Court Regarding the Inequity Caused by a Diminishing Coverture Fraction as Directed under Current Law
Rendered: November 9, 2017
To Be Published
Opinion Affirming In Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding
Author’s Note: Thank you Tim Theissen, Esq., of Strauss Troy, for sharing this case with me the day it came out - actually that very afternoon during a lunch meeting. (Thanks for ruining my lunch, Tim!)
“Houston, we have a problem.” This is the essence of Priest v. Priest. Priest involves the division and assignment of a military pension in divorce, and you may remember it from the first time it came through the Court, in 2015, wherein the Court remanded back to the trial court for findings consistent with Poe v. Poe, 711 S.W.2d 849, 850 (Ky. App. 1986), and Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 297 S.W.3d 878, 890-891 (Ky. App. 2009). See my prior blog post at: http://www.ezlawpllc.com/blog/2015/5/17/qdro-catch-up-case-law-legislative-updates-in-ohio-kentucky.
Read More
I have felt your distress from my lack of monthly posts since February. I have felt your yearning for EZ QDRO Law Updates. I have felt your hunger for more more more. Alas, I have been juggling multiple QDRO balls lately, and let this one drop. Before I leave for my QDRO sabbatical (I bet those two words have never met before in the same sentence), I wanted to post a few recent case law updates for Kentucky and a legislative update for Ohio. Of note, the 12th District Ohio Court of Appeals & Supreme Court of Ohio have been QDRO-quiet so far this year.
Read More
My Look Back at This Year's Most Common QDRO-Related Mishaps
Happy New Year! I thank each and every one of you for another wonderful year here at EZ QDRO LAW. I can only imagine what 2015 holds for us... you, me, and QDROs. (Blissful sigh).
BUT, since we still have a precious few hours of 2014 left, just like every other self-proclaimed Blogger, I cannot resist the opportunity to reminisce -- or as some may see it -- beat a dead QDRO horse. (I assure my readership, no horses were hurt for this post, only poor innocent QDROs.)
It is clear that many of the QDRO-related problems I have been presented with this year are geographically linked. Other problems that I’ve seen crop up are more universal in nature. In either case, I promise dear reader, there is not a single issue below that I have seen only once, twice, or three (plus) times this year. Most important is that these issues are local, in that they have rattled (even the most seasoned) practitioners right here in Kentucky and Ohio. So if you recognize yourself in this post, you are amongst friends and good company.
Now let's band together and put my Top Five to rest in 2014, along with the proliferation of creepy-vans-turned-food-trucks on Fountain Square, Kim Kardashian’s photos of you-know-what and Ellen DeGeneres’ Oscar photo tweet “breaking the internet” (yes, I looked at the former), Pharrell's hat (Smokey Bear called...), Alex from Target, Grumpy Cat, and Dumb and Dumber To (sorry AR).
Read More
Saks v. Riga, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101091, 2014-Ohio-4930
Lions (Expert Witnesses), Tigers (Coverture), and Bears (Deferred Distribution), Oh My!
Released and Journalized: November 6, 2014
Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded
Today’s feature case is just plain good ole’ domestic relations law fun. It hits on several pinnacle issues related to QDROs (or in this case rather, a Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP), which divides Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) pensions). In fact, the issues are so well canvased that this Opinion makes a wonderful primer – or refresher course – for domestic relations attorneys practicing in Ohio.
For starters, both parties in this case were/are attorneys. So that may help explain the need for a 34 page Opinion. After trial, the magistrate divided the parties’ marital property, and ordered Husband to pay monthly child and spousal support and one-half of Wife’s attorney fees. Both parties filed objections to the magistrate’s decision; the trial court overruled all of the objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision except for a few limited modifications. Husband appealed, raising eleven assignments of error. Wife cross-appealed, raising one assignment of error.
I have broken down the relevant issues in Saks v. Riga in an index-like format below, for future quick reference. But I strongly encourage every attorney reading this blog (or just the two, thanks DP and GA) to read this Opinion in full. You know, with all your spare time.
Read MoreHow Does the Family Law Practitioner Properly Advise a Client in Divorce When One Party Participates in KTRS?
This blog post is based upon a topic I have researched over the past year, and am continuing to explore with the intention of ultimately submitting something more formal for publication. This post follows my general blogging trend. I present a problem – for instance, in this case arising from legislative and judicial ambiguity – and then submit to my reader a possible solution to chew on. It is a longer post than usual, and is not for the faint at heart. Venture at your own risk...
Recently, in Eden v. Eden, No. 2012-CA-000819-MR (Ky. App. 2014), the Kentucky Court of Appeals considered the proper classification and division of a Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System Pension (“KTRS Plan” or “KTRS Pension”) in divorce pursuant to the governing statutes and regulations (see my blog post dated March 25, 2014). Although not directly at issue in Eden, because the participant was already retired and drawing his monthly retirement allowance, this author could not help but to be reminded of the uncertainty under state law when valuing, classifying, and dividing a KTRS pension in divorce.
Read More