Hempel v. Hempel, Ky COA, Parenting Time, Imputed Income, Property Division

Hempel v. Hempel, 2011-CA-000763-MR

Published:   Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part, and

County:  Oldham

Ex-Husband appealed FC’s order,
contending that FC erred by imputing income to him for child support purposes,
by arbitrarily reducing his parenting time, and by making an unequal division
of the marital estate. 

Parenting Time:

CA agreed with Ex-Husband that there
was no substantial evidence to support FC’s finding that he had not regularly
exercised the parenting time allotted to him before trial, and that evidence
clearly showed that he saw children on an almost daily basis.  CA held that FC clearly erred on this issue
and remanded for further consideration of the issue.

Child Support:

CA agreed with Ex-Husband that as
there was no evidence introduced to show the strength or nature of prevailing
job opportunities or the expected earnings levels in the community, and as FC
gave no explanation as to how it determined that Ex-Husband could be expected
to earn at the same level as Ex-Wife, there were inadequate findings for CA to
conduct meaningful review of the decision and the issue was remanded to FC for
further findings. 

Division of Marital Estate:

CA did not agree with Ex-Husband that
FC erred by not giving him equal share of marital estate.  CA found no evidence that FC considered any
factors other than statutory criteria and that FC did not abuse its discretion
in the division. 

UGMA accounts:

CA did not agree with Ex-Husband that
FC erred by failing to permit him to oversee the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
accounts of the children.  CA noted that
under statutory provisions, Ex-Wife as monitor of the accounts must keep
records available for inspection and that Ex-Husband was permitted to inspect
the account. 

Affirmed in Part, Vacated in Part, and

Digested by Michelle Eisenmenger
, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates