Recent Posts

Journal Categories

  • Sunday, September 17, 2017

    CALLIHAN V. CALLIHAN

    During the marriage Husband obtained a loan from PNC Bank for his business which wife signed as a guarantor. The parties subsequently entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement which provided each party would be responsible for debt solely in their name and Husband would hold harmless and indemnify Wife for business any debts. Husband defaulted on the business loan and PNC sued Wife in her individual capacity. Wife asked the family court of compel Husband to “indemnify her ‘for any monies paid to PNC and for all costs and attorney fees associated with defending said action and also all costs and attorney fees associated with filing this Motion in family court.’” After a hearing, the family court granted Wife’s motion.

    Husband appealed arguing that because Wife personally guaranteed the note she should be obligated to pay the PNC debt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court...

  • Thursday, September 14, 2017

    GIESE V. GIESE

    Husband’s maintenance obligation was established by a Tennessee Court. Husband filed a motion to modify his maintenance obligation in Kentucky. The Kentucky court denied his motion. Husband filed this appeal arguing the Kentucky trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to make any order on spousal maintenance.

    The Court of Appeals agrees with Husband holding that based on the “clear statutory scheme” between Tennessee and Kentucky, “Kentucky courts have no authority or subject-matter jurisdiction to modify a Tennessee court’s spousal maintenance order.” Although Husband raised this agreement after filing his appeal, subject-matter jurisdiction arguments cannot be waived and can be raised at any time. Thus the Court of Appeals reverses and remands to the trial court for an  order “for transfer to the original Tennessee court.” However, Kentucky  does have the authority to...

  • Thursday, September 14, 2017

    NUNLEY, ET AL. V. NEULING

    Grandparents filed a petition for grandparent visitation on June 27, 2012. They entered into an agreed order in the matter on July 24, 2012, which was set aside by order entered December 20, 2013. Grandparents filed a notice of appeal, but while that appeal was pending entered into two additional agreed orders resolving the grandparent visitation issues. By agreed order entered November 17, 2014, the family court adopted by reference the September 3, 2014, and the

    November 4, 2014, mediation agreements. Grandparents did not file any appeal of the November 17, 2014 Order. Subsequently, the original appeal was dismissed as the grandparent issues were still pending at the time of the December 20, 2013 Order. Grandparents then requested the court enter a final and appealable order, which the court did on October 30, 2015 stating “an order has been entered on the outstanding issue...

  • Saturday, September 2, 2017

    BALDWIN V. MOLLETTE, ET AL.

    Incarcerated father’s motion for visitation and access to his children was denied by trial court.

    The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s holding and remanded for another hearing as the trial court failed to make a finding regarding endangerment pursuant to KRS 403.320(1). “… a presumption for visitation exists for a parent unless a family court determines that visitation would seriously endanger the child.” The court of appeals also noted two procedural concerns. First, son who acted as father with durable power of attorney was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and should not have been allowed to “stand in” for his father. Second, the motion was improperly filed in the paternity action which did not include any custody determination.

    Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell

     

  • Tuesday, August 29, 2017

    ANNE M. TALLEY V. DANIEL J. PAISLEY

     Questions Presented: Real Estate. Partition. Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship. Division of proceeds of sale of realty owned by unmarried cohabiting couple in joint tenancy with right of survivorship.

     

    An unmarried couple owned real estate in joint names with a right of survivorship. Boyfriend made the majority of payments on the home mortgage and down payment over the parties’ fifteen year cohabitation. The couple’s relationship ended and the boyfriend filed a complaint asking the court to divide the equity in the home in proportion to each party's contributions. The trial court found that the parties had no agreement as to the disbursement of the property and divided the equity equally between boyfriend and girlfriend. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order holding Kentucky law allows joint tenants to be reimbursed for...

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