Recent Posts

Journal Categories

  • Monday, November 13, 2017

    PRIEST V. PRIEST

    The Court of Appeals previously ruled in this case (Priest v. Priest, No. 2014-CA-000148-MR) holding Wife’s share of Husband’s military retirement “should be calculated based upon the DFSA, Section IV(c) as outlined in Poe v. Poe. 711 S.W.2d 849, 850 (Ky. App. 1986). The family court divided the military retirement benefit utilizing the hypothetical award formula set out in DFSA IV(c) pursuant to Poe. Wife again appealed arguing the family court incorrectly applied the DFSA formula.

    The Court of Appeals only finds one error in the family court’s calculation, the cost of living adjustment, and reverses the family court “on this one calculation” and remands “for a correction to the court’s final award.” Interestingly, the Court of Appeals implores the Supreme Court to revisit the law as to military retirement stating “Given the final result of the current law upon the division of the...

  • Monday, November 6, 2017

    DIXON V. DIXON

    Parties entered into a marital settlement agreement requiring husband to make payments for maintenance and child support. Instead, husband paid wife’s mortgage which was in excess of his child support and maintenance obligations. Wife objected but did not request a hearing on the issue for two years, which was more than a year after payments stopped. The family court, applying the doctrine of latches, found that Wife had “failed to consistently pursue her claim” and therefore no arrearages were due.

    The Court of Appeals affirms the family court holding that the family court properly applied the doctrine of latches. The court notes that the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence which “is applied to transactions in which it would be unconscionable to permit a person to maintain a position which is inconsistent with one in which he has previously acquiesced” is a better fit for this fact...

  • Monday, October 30, 2017

    DELEO V. DELEO

    The court scheduled a two day trial on a dissolution action including custody issues, parenting issues, and division of assets. Wife fired her initial counsel and had difficulty finding alternate counsel given her financial position. Wife ultimately obtained counsel who had a conflict with the scheduled trial date. Wife’s several motions for a continuance were denied and ultimately her new counsel withdrew leaving Wife without an attorney for trial. After trial, Wife filed an appeal arguing she should have been granted a continuance.

    The Court of Appeals held that “the family court abused its discretion when it denied [Wife’s] motion for a continuance of the trial without considering any other factor than that it would delay the trial.” The family court should have considered the Snodgrass factors: “1) length of delay; 2) previous continuances; 3) inconveniences to litigants, witnesses,...

  • Sunday, October 8, 2017

    The Kentucky Court of Appeals has asked us to post the two openings they have for staff attorneys.

    Here are the details:

    COA STAFF ATTORNEY - NT

    JOB CODE : 89140V001504

    TITLE : COA STAFF ATTORNEY - NT

    DEPARTMENT : KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS

    GRADE : 15

    SALARY : $42,500.16 - $56,100.00 (MIN TO MAX ANNUAL SALARY RANGE)

    TENURED : NO

    LOCATION : Franklin

    TYPE : State Funded Full-time

    Post ID : 4825 Position # : 30000930

    COUNTY WORKSTATION : Franklin

    JOB SPECIFICATION REPORT

    MEMO : IN ADDITION TO YOUR ONLINE APPLICATION PLEASE FORWARD ALL COVER LETTERS, RESUMES AND

    WRITING SAMPLES BY EMAIL TO: BECKYLYON@KYCOURTS.NET, CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY

    CHARACTERISTICS OF THE JOB

    RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEW OF LEGAL BRIEFS AND APPELLATE RECORD, IN-DEPTH LEGAL RESEARCH, AND

    PREPARATION OF LEGAL MEMORANDA FOR JUDGES’ REVIEW.

    MINIMUM...

  • Monday, October 2, 2017

    HALLOWAY V. SIMMONS

    Boyfriend and girlfriend had conflict which resulted in an EPO being granted in Jefferson County against Boyfriend. Boyfriend violated the EPO and was charged. The day after his pre-trial conference, Boyfriend sought an IPO against girlfriend in Oldham County claiming she was targeting his locations. The Oldham County family court granted the IPO. Girlfriend appealed arguing that the Oldham County family court erred in granting the IPO “without a sufficient factual basis for finding that stalking had occurred and may occur again.”

    The Court of Appeals agreed holding the facts clearly do not support the issuance of an IPO. As IPOs are a new action in Kentucky it is worth quoting the court’s rationale in full: "To summarize, for an individual to be granted an IPO for stalking, he or she must at a minimum prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, an individual intentionally...

This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be considered to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. Persons accessing this site are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.
© Diana L. Skaggs + Partners, PLLC · 623 W. Main Street · Louisville, KY · 40202 · Tel: (502) 562-0050 · Fax: (502) 582-3523

THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT