Recent Posts

Journal Categories

  • Friday, June 8, 2018

    NORMANDIN V. NORMANDIN

     

    Husband and Wife divorced and the family court entered an order on child support, maintenance, and property division. Wife appealed challenging the family court’s conclusions of law on a number of issues.

     

    Wife first argued that the trial court erred in failing to make adequate findings and by considering the nonmarital inheritance she received in setting maintenance. The Court of Appeals affirms the family court holding that “It is well within the court’s discretion to consider nonmarital assets when calculating the amount and duration of maintenance.” The family court properly considered Wife’s financial resources, education level, the marital standard of living, along with other factors.

     

    Wife next argues that the trial court erred in finding Husband’s unvested RSUs were nonmarital property. The Court of Appeal disagrees affirming...

  • Friday, June 8, 2018

    JONES V. LIVESAY

    After dissolution of marriage proceeding, Wife appealed on four issues. The Court of Appeals begins with a lengthy discussion of substantial compliance because Wife failed to follow the Civil Rules.

     

    First, Wife argues that “the visitation schedule is improper and should be set aside.” As she did not advance a substantive argument on this issue, the Court of Appeals does not address it pursuant to its holding in Milby v. Mears, 580 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Ky. App. 1979).

     

    Second, Wife argues that the family court erred in classifying three parcels of real estate as nonmarital. Third, Wife argues that the family court’s division of personal property was inequitable. Again the Court of Appeals does not address these issues this time because Wife failed to preserve them for appeal and failed to cite underlying authority.

     

    Fourth, Wife argues...

  • Monday, April 16, 2018

    Update: Opinion withdrawn

    BAAS V. BAAS

    Husband and Wife entered into a bullet-pointed informal mediated agreement. Wife signed based on the mediators representations that a tax credit Wife would receive in the agreement offset the difference in Wife’s valuation and Husband’s valuation of his businesses. When Husband’s attorney put together a formal agreement, Wife refused to sign as “the mediator’s assurances regarding the value of the tax exemption were not accurate, and that the separation agreement addressed issues not previously discussed or agreed upon.” Husband motioned the Family Court to enforce the mediated agreement. After the hearing, the Family Court granted Husband’s motion and “ordered the mediated agreement incorporated by reference into the decree.”

     

    Wife appealed arguing the mediated agreement was...

  • Monday, April 16, 2018

    HILLARD V. KEATING

     

    Mother and Father had significant post-decree litigation regarding child support, tax exemptions, and uncovered medical expenses which ultimately resulted in a ruling that modified the allocation of dependent-child tax exemptions allowing Father to claim two children. Mother appealed arguing that the Family Court erred in modifying the tax exemptions without making specific findings.

     

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the Family Court holding that Adams-Smyrichinsky controls absent an agreement between the parties. As in this case, there was a prior agreement by the parties, the Family Court looked at the totality of the circumstances and made an equitable and reasonable decision to allow Father to keep the tax exemptions for two children, and it was supported by sufficient findings.

     

    Digested by...

  • Monday, April 16, 2018

    DUNN V. THACKER

    Family Court granted Father’s request for DVO against Mother on behalf of himself and child, after finding Mother’s boyfriend was a physical threat to child. Mother appealed arguing the DVO could not stand because it was her boyfriend, not Mother “who committed the alleged domestic violence against Child.”

     

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the Family Court holding that Mother’s “inaction in the face of harm inflicted on her child . . . is tantamount to abuse.” In Kentucky, parents, or those acting as parents, have a duty to protect children. Moreover, in this case, Mother herself in text messages “directly implicated Boyfriend in physically abusing Child.” Thus, the DVO was properly entered against Mother and there was enough evidence to support the entry of the Order.

     

     Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell

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