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 transfer title in accordance with the decree generally requires a separate action in the jurisdiction in which it is located.
2. Absent an agreement to the contrary, in dissolution of marriage proceedings the law of the marital domicile applies.
3. Although a license required by statute is relevant in the court’s determination, a lack of a real estate appraiser’s license or certification does not by itself render the testimony inadmissible.
4. The family court acted within its discretion when it found that wife’s nonmarital contribution as manager of the mini warehouse before and after marriage was equal to the monetary contribution of non-martial funds contributed by husband toward the acquisition and improvement.
The appreciation of a business with a nonmarital interest is treated differently than appreciated real estate
This part reversed:
Both made nonmarital contributions to St. Maarten villa but court awarded it all to wife for 8 good reasons, i.e., difficulty of enforcing Ky judgment in St. Maarten, in balancing the equities as no maintenance was granted and the speculative nature of the appraisal, etc. The court erred in failing to go through the process required by KRS 403.190. A court has no discretion to divide nonmarital property. On remand the court must apply the Brandenburg formula.
Complete digest to follow.