HOFFMAN V. HOFFMAN The trial court entered an Order reducing maintenance which neither party received until twelve days after the Order was entered. Wife filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate pursuant to CR 59.05, CR 60.01 or CR 60.02. The trial court found that no fault could be attributed to Wife for the...Read More

BROOKS V. BYRD Mother filed an appeal from a custody order while a post-judgment motion was pending. After the filing of the appeal, the trial court ruled on the post-judgment motion entering findings of facts, conclusions of law, and a custody/visitation order. Mother did not amend her notice of appeal and the post-judgment documents were...Read More

SALLEE V. SALLEE The Appellate Court vacated and remanded the Family Court’s denial of a Motion for Contempt for Father’s failure to pay child support. The Family Court incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the Mother/obligee to prove an arrearage was owed. Once the child support obligation is established, the child support obligor, in...Read More

BOONE V. BOONE The mandate for written findings of fact and conclusions of law applies to DVO cases. CR 52.01 and KRS Chapter 403, along with the holding in Keifer, require findings in family law cases be reduced to writing. DVOs affect child custody, therefore they fall within the purview of CR 52.01. In this...Read More

Farrar v. FarrarRead More

Lambe v. Weber The Appellate Court first addresses maintenance, holding that income should not be imputed to a spouse when her underemployment is not voluntary. In this case, the child’s medical needs prevented the mother from working.Read More

Rumpel v. RumpelRead More

Middleton v. Middleton Interesting 50 page opinion and dissent addressing characterization of distributions from family trust, nonmarital tracing and standard of proof, division of marital personalty, assignment of debt, attorney fees and costs.Read More

Wolfe v. Wolfe, 2012-CA-000578-ME To Be Published:   Affirming   County:  Laurel Mom appeals denial of DVO on child’s behalf claiming that Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to DV proceedings and she was denied opportunity to offer proof during DV hearing. FACTS:Read More