Pennington v. Marcum, decided today by the Kentucky Supreme Court. Congratulations to Martha Rosenberg! I dreaded reading Justice Cunningham’s dissent, only to find him cite the “prestigious” AAML and our model relocation act as guidelines that could have given courts greater guidance than best interests. A good day! We will post more on the case...Read More
From The Wall Street Journal Market Watch: “Suggested retail price for an Identigene DNA Paternity Test Collection Kit is $29.99. The Walgreens.com price is the same, plus shipping. The laboratory and processing fee for the personal test is $119. The laboratory and processing fee for test results for legal proceedings is $319.”Read More
Grant v. Lynn, grandparent visitation to parents of children’s deceased mother affirmed as in the best interest of the children, KRS 405.021 not unconstitutional as alleged and standards of appellate practice for pro se litigants.Read More
Murphy v. Murphy, –S.W.3d – (Ky. App. 2008), 2007-CA-002298-ME The parties shared joint custody and equal parenting time of their three children. More than a year after the parties’ last interaction with the court, the father moved to modify custody. He mailed the motion/notice to the mother’s attorney of record. The mother’s attorney of record...Read More
Murphy v. Murphy, trial court reversed because motion to change custody served on lawyer did not effectuate service on party and insufficient findings made. Digest to follow.Read More
T.A.N. v. M.J. 2007-CA-002584 PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING PANEL: LAMBERT PRESIDING; STUMBO, THOMPSON CONCUR COUNTY: JEFFERSON DATE RENDERED: 9/26/2008 Mother appealed TC’s order providing additional parenting time to her ex-boyfriend, Father.Read More
Kennedy v. Plan Adm. for DuPont Savings was heard by the United States Supreme Court yesterday. At issue is whether a divorce agreement waiving survivorship pension rights is sufficient to defeat an unchanged beneficiary designation. The 5th circuit had held that a QDRO was the only way to defeat a pension beneficiary designation, creating a...Read More
Fehr v. Fehr,reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded in part. This part affirmed: 1. A court with in personam jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction over a dissolution action may declare the parties’ interests in foreign land. However, consistent with the limitations on the court’s jurisdiction, to enforce a foreign decree so as to...Read More
