Divorce Law Journal

Howard v. Howard, Ky COA, Child Support Modification, Discharge Of Debt In Bankruptcy

HOWARD V. HOWARD

CHILD SUPPORT MODIFICATION; DISCHARGE OF MARITAL DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY
TO BE PUBLISHED:  AFFIRMED

PANEL:  SENIOR JUDGE LAMBERT PRESIDING; CLAYTON AND THOMPSON CONCUR

COUNTY: LAUREL
DATE RENDERED: 6/12/2009

Dad appealed TC’s finding that he was voluntarily underemployed and corollary order denying his motion for modification of child support, as well as TC’s finding that Dad was in contempt for his failure to pay a deficiency judgment related to a marital debt. 

Motion for Modification of Child Support:  While parties’ divorce was pending, Dad quit federal job, claiming medical grounds, but TC found after trial that Dad was voluntarily underemployed and imputed income to him based on his prior earnings.  The following year, Dad filed his Motion for Modification of Child Support, claiming that his income had dropped to less than half that of his former employment.  TC reiterated its previous finding that Dad was voluntarily underemployed and held that he had presented no new evidence since the prior determination.

CA held that Dad failed to make a showing of a substantial and continuing material change in circumstance, as required by statute for child support modification, as the circumstance he presented to the court at the modification hearing was not materially different than that presented to the court at the trial. 

Finding of Contempt regarding failure to pay Debt:  The parties’ divorce decree provided that Dad was to pay a deficiency judgment arising from repossession of an automobile.  Dad subsequently sought bankruptcy protection, listing the automobile debt as an obligation.  At the modification hearing, Dad was held in contempt for failure to pay this debt.  Dad appealed the finding of contempt, claiming discharge in bankruptcy, in part because Mom did not object in bankruptcy court.  Mom argued that Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 precludes bankruptcy discharge of all marital and domestic relations obligations. 

After noting that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over whether a debt has been discharged, CA held that because the automobile debt was agreed to by the parties and imposed on Dad by decree, it was “in connection with a divorce decree” and was therefore non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.  Thus, TC used its power of contempt to enforce its orders, and did so without error. 

TC affirmed.

Digested by Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Allison v. Allison, Marital/Nonmarital Propert And Debts, Attorney Fees

ALLISON V. ALLISON
DIVORCE: MARITAL/NONMARITAL CHARACTERIZATION OF PROPERTY AND DEBTS; ATTORNEY FEES
2006-CA-001967.
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING IN PART AND VACATING IN PART AND REMANDING
PANEL: BUCKINGHAM, PRESIDING; THOMPSON AND HENRY CONCUR
COUNTY: FAYETTE
DATE RENDERED: 02/15/2008
Ex-Husband appealed from TC’s orders relating to marital/nonmarital nature of his family's business, the marital/nonmarital nature of a $66,714 debt allegedly owed by Ex-Wife to her mother, and the award of attorney and expert witness fees.

Ex-Husband and Ex-Wife were married on September 5, 1986. In the early 1970's, Ex-Husband's mother and father acquired all stock in an office-supply business. Ex-Husband owned all shares of stock in the business at the time of trial, which he claimed to be his nonmarital property. He claimed that prior to the marriage he entered into an agreement that gave him an 8% interest in the business in exchange for a promissory note from him for $32,000. Ex-Husband never paid the note, and TC found that his father had forgiven the debt. Ex-Husband contended that he owned this portion of the outstanding business shares as his nonmarital property because the forgiveness of the debt constituted a gift to him. Alternatively, he contended that this ownership interest is his nonmarital property because he acquired it before marriage.

As to the remaining shares of corporate stock, during the marriage, there was a stock redemption agreement between Ex-Husband's parents and the corporation whereby the parents sold their 84,800 shares of stock to the corporation for a sum that was paid to them over a ten-year period by corporate earnings. Ex-Husband claimed that these shares were also his parents' gift to him and that he never paid any money, from marital funds or otherwise, for the stock.

Ex-Husband ultimately argued to CA that he had at least an 8% nonmarital interest in the business due to the forgiveness of the payment for the stock by his father, citing KRS 403.190(2)(a) which expressly excludes property acquired by gift from the definition of “marital property” unless “there are significant activities of either spouse which contributed to the increase in value of said property and the income earned therefrom.” Alternatively, Ex-Husband stated that the 8% interest is nonmarital because it was acquired before marriage.

CA provided that if Ex-Husband acquired his ownership interest in exchange for the note, and that indebtedness was later forgiven, then the forgiveness of the indebtedness would be a gift to Ex-Husband and would constitute a nonmarital interest in the corporation. CA thus vacated TC’s determination that Ex-Husband did not have a nonmarital interest in the corporation and remanded the matter for TC to determine the extent of Ex-Husband's interest prior to the redemption agreement and whether such interest was marital or was proven by Ex-Husband to be nonmarital as a result of a gift or nonmarital as having been acquired before marriage.

CA further noted that if, on remand, TC determined that Ex-Husband's interest prior to the redemption was marital, then any increase in ownership interest because of the redemption agreement was also necessarily marital. If TC determined that Ex-Husband's interest prior to the redemption was nonmarital, then it must determine whether any increase in value was marital or nonmarital. CA noted that, in this regard, the case was one of first impression in Kentucky.

CA recognized that under the “source of funds” rule used by Kentucky courts to determine whether property is marital or nonmarital, property is considered to be acquired as it is paid for; thus, the shares of stock sold to the corporation in the stock redemption agreement were not “acquired”, within the meaning of KRS 403.190 and the determination of marital/nonmarital interest, until they were paid for. CA found that these shares were paid for during the marriage over a period of years by corporate earnings and therefore were “acquired” during the marriage and are presumed to be marital property. Ex-Husband attempted to avoid the presumption by arguing that he exchanged his 8% interest for a 100% interest when the stock redemption occurred. CA agreed with Ex-Husband that the value of his ownership interest did not increase at the time of the stock redemption because while the percentage of ownership interest increased, the value of the corporation decreased because of the debt liability created to pay Ex-Husband's parents for their shares. However, although Ex-Husband's ownership interest at the time of the redemption of his parents' shares increased, the value of Ex-Husband's shares did not. Rather, the value of Ex-Husband's shares increased during the marriage as the corporation gradually paid the debt to Ex-Husband's parents. CA provided that if Ex-Husband had a nonmarital interest in the corporation at the time of marriage, the value of that interest likely increased in time as the years passed and the corporation paid off the debt owed to Ex-Husband's parents. CA held that to the extent the increase was due to Ex-Husband's efforts as the primary operator of the business and Ex-Wife's efforts as homemaker, it was marital property. However, to the extent the increase in value was due to general economic conditions, the increase was not marital property.

Ex-Husband's second argument was that TC erred in finding that checks from Ex-Wife's mother written to Ex-Wife after she and Ex-Husband separated constituted a marital debt. After the parties separated, Ex-Wife was awarded $2,000 per month for temporary maintenance and $1,000 for child support. Thereafter, as power of attorney for her mother, Ex-Wife wrote checks totaling $66,714 on her mother's checking account. Some of the checks were written before the maintenance and child support awards to Ex-Wife, and some were written after the awards. Of this amount, $27,300 in checks apparently were written to Ex-Wife herself for cash. Ex-Wife claimed that all the checks were loans from her mother that were needed because she could not meet her living expenses despite her maintenance award of $3,000 per month. She claimed that much of the money went for home maintenance and repair and that the remainder went for living expenses for her and her daughter. Ex-Husband was not aware of the alleged loans, and he argued that the checks were likely to be gifts from Ex-Wife's mother and that Ex-Wife's testimony that the checks were loans and the notations of “loan” on some of the checks were insufficient to prove the existence of a loan. Ex-Wife testified as to the nature of the debts and had documentation in the form of checks from her mother that supported her testimony that there was actually a loan. TC accepted Ex-Wife's claim of indebtedness to her mother based on her testimony and copies of the checks and CA concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the determination that the checks represented loans, not gifts. However, CA held that to the extent that Ex-Wife may have used loan proceeds for her personal expenses and expenses for her child after being awarded temporary maintenance and child support, those debts should be held to be Ex-Wife's personal debts. To do otherwise would be to increase Ex-Husband's temporary maintenance and child support obligations during that period of time.

Ex-Husband's third and final argument was that TC erred in ordering him to pay 25% of Ex-Wife's attorney fees and expert witness fees because there was not an imbalance in the financial resources of the parties. Ex-husband stated that the marital property was equalized but that the majority of his assigned marital property ($1.2 million) was the family business. Ex-Wife asserted that while Ex-Husband had a salary of over $100,000 per year, as well as potentially more due to retained corporate earnings not paid by the corporation, she was 55 years old at the time, had been out of the work force for 10 years, and had only a high school education, so although the marital property was divided equally, the financial resources of the parties were not balanced due to these additional facts. Ex-Husband also correctly stated that TC made no specific finding that there was an imbalance in the financial resources of the party, but that it appeared to base its award on Ex-Husband's obstructive tactics in failing to comply with discovery requests and orders of the court. Also, Ex-Husband argued that attorney fees may be awarded pursuant to KRS 403.220 only when there is an imbalance in the parties’ financial resources, even though attorney fees may be warranted otherwise under CR 37.01 due to obstruction tactics. CA found that it was not entirely clear whether TC based its award of attorney fees under KRS 403.220 on the financial resources of the parties as well as Ex-Husband's obstructive tactics. CA found that while TC did not specifically address the parties' financial resources prior to making the award, it did cite the statute, which requires the court to consider such resources. CA held that, in light of Ex-Husband's failure to seek a more specific finding from the court, and in light of the fact that a finding of disparity in the parties' financial resources due to the parties' respective incomes was supported by the evidence, TC did not abuse its discretion in awarding Ex-Wife 25% of her attorney fees and expert witness fees.
As digested by Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Brenzel v. Brenzel (Ky) Valuation Of Buisness/Draws From Buisness Not Supported By Note

Brenzel v. Brenzel, ___ S.W. 3d____ (Ky. App. 2008)

Husband appealed TC’s Order resulting from distribution of property in dissolution action, alleging that TC erred when it valued his interest in businesses partially owned by him and when it denied his CR 60.02 motion. Wife cross-appealed, alleging that TC erred when it determined Husband's income and that the amount of her maintenance award was an abuse of discretion.

Husband and Wife were married for sixteen years and have 2 minor children. Throughout the marriage, Husband was involved in several business ventures with his father and brother. Husband alleged that TC erred when it determined that he would not have to repay draws and advances made against the capital account of the family-owned businesses and, thus, were not properly characterized as debts owed by Husband nor debts that decreased the value of his business interests. In addition to his salary, there was evidence that Husband had taken draws from the partnership and had decreased its capital account in the amount of $324,508.

Wife’s CPA utilized the asset approach to value Husband's interest in the family businesses, but did not deduct draws and advances by either brother as there were no promissory notes or evidence that debts were owed to a third party as a result of the draws and advances. He concluded that the businesses were worth $13,500 and $183,150. One of Husband’s financial experts deducted the value of the draws and advances and a negative capital account from one business’ value and concluded that it had a negative value of $656,846, and he testified that if that business was dissolved or sold, the partners could require Husband to repay his portion of the money, which totaled $324,508. Husband’s other expert testified that real estate owned by the other business was worth less than the amount it appraised for a few years prior, even though Husband received his full portion of the appraised amount when the property was sold. TC concluded that the values of Husband's interests in the businesses were $162,800 and $13,500, as there was no credible evidence that upon dissolution of the partnership or its sale, Husband would be required to pay back the approximately $324,508 he received in draws and advances against the capital account as suggested by Husband's expert. The court then awarded $80,000 to Wife as her marital interest in the businesses and Husband $96,300.

CA found significant the absence of promissory notes signed by Husband, any specific evidence in the record that Husband was obligated to repay the money, or evidence that Husband had made any past payments toward the amount and agreed with Wife that there was no abuse of discretion in TC’s refusal to deduct that amount from the value of Husband's interest in the family businesses.

After receiving TC’s original ruling and rulings on CR 59.05 motions filed by both parties, Husband filed a CR 60.02 motion alleging that Wife had made a substantial down payment on a residence and possibly failed to disclose marital assets or had additional income, and that he had a non-marital interest in property included in the marital estate. He cited health issues as the reason for his failure to raise the issue earlier. Prior to the ruling on the motion, Husband filed this appeal. Husband contends that TC denied his CR 60.02 motion based on its erroneous interpretation of the law that since he had filed a notice of appeal prior to TC’s ruling on the motion, the court lost jurisdiction. However, he failed to cite to the record where TC expressed the basis for its denial of his motion. CA found that that the grounds alleged in Husband's motion and affidavit were insufficient to warrant the relief requested and, therefore, it was properly denied.

Wife challenged TC’s calculation of Husband’s income, asserting that TC should have calculated the businesses’ projected future earnings based on the past few years’ performance, rather than setting a lower amount based on predicted downturns in profitability. TC found, in agreement with Husband’s testimony, that Husband’s gross monthly income was $4,847.17. Wife argued that Husband's income should have been based on the years immediately preceding the dissolution hearing during which Husband's income was higher than $4,847.17. CA disagreed, finding that there was persuasive evidence that the profits from the family businesses had steadily declined over the past five years, and the fact that real estate owned by the businesses was listed for sale indicated that Husband’s future income was speculative.

Wife also challenged the amount of maintenance awarded on the basis that her reasonable living expenses exceed her income and the maintenance awarded. Wife is a 40 year-old high school graduate who receives Social Security Disability benefits of $804 per month. TC awarded permanent maintenance of only $250 per month, though her reasonable needs total $2,201 per month. CA disagreed with Wife, noting that Wife received $107,130.20 in marital property and that Wife was assigned a comparatively small amount of the marital debt. Thus, when it determined the amount of maintenance to award, TC properly considered the factors set forth in KRS 403.200(2). Affirmed.

As digested by Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Blogging About Debt

The New York Times last Sunday featured an article about people who blog about their debt. What made the topic most interesting was the post at Credit Slips which describes itself as a blog on all things about credit and bankruptcy. We are six academics who will use this space to do what we like to do when we get together--discussing and debating what does happen and what should happen when consumers and businesses borrow money. From Angie Littwin, who is writing a law review article on the topic:

For those of us who are interested in debt, a few interesting points emerge. First, for these bloggers, stigma is alive and well. They are using the Internet as a clever way to circumvent it and still obtain the help they need. Many of these bloggers are revealing private information they conceal from their families and friends....Second, these bloggers have developed a self-control mechanism that aligns perfectly with cutting-edge research in behavioral economics. Just yesterday, I read an article by economists George Lowenstein and Ted O’Donoghue in the Chicago Law Review's Winter 2006 Symposium. In "We Can Do This the Easy Way or the Hard Way": Negative Emotions, Self-Regulation, and the Law, Lowenstein and O’Donoghue explain that people use negative emotions to help resist temptation. When the benefits of a decision will be realized immediately, but the costs will not occur so soon, people experience temptation, because we tend to weigh present costs and benefits more heavily than future ones....A final point is to notice what an extreme measure this is. People are revealing information they find humiliating to strangers in order to prevent themselves from spending and accumulating more debt. Perhaps these bloggers and other debtors like them could use a little help....Credit-card issuers don’t need to continue giving these borrowers enough rope to hang themselves. At least one blogger's credit-card debt exceeded her annual income. That seems like a reasonably extreme point to cut off somebody’s credit. Another option is to create easy ways for credit-card users to decline credit raises. If some debtors are resorting to blogging to resist temptation, I’m willing to bet that plenty of others would welcome less dramatic willpower reinforcements.

Some of the most difficult divorces involve division of debt.

Till Debt Do Us Part

The San Francisco Family Law Blog reprints an article from Gannett, Till Debt Do Us Part. "Which financial issues most often cause strife? Spending too much and saving too little, according to couples who responded to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll in March....Making matters worse is that couples don't talk much about money before committing to each other. Nearly two-thirds of married couples who responded to USA TODAY's poll said they talked little or not at all before the wedding about how to combine their finances."

That is part of the reason the AAML has launched its Forcus On Forever initiative. This 43-page workbook is designed for those entering long term, committed relationships, to develop skills needed for success. Created with Academy Fellows, along with two nationally recognized psychologists and a CPA-CFP. it includes vignettes, exercises, budget worksheets and suggested readings. It's available for purchase though the AAML for $11.50.

Gomez v. Gomez, 168 SW3d 51 (KY. App., 2005)

Gomez v. Gomez, 168 SW3d 51 (KY. App., 2005)
Hospital based medical practice valuation which included
no goodwill value was reluctantly affirmed because, while
capitalization of excess earnings method is an acceptable
approach, the trial court is not required to use this method
and trial court ruling as to valuation will not be disturbed
unless clearly contrary to the evidence submitted. The
Court of Appeals reversed the maintenance award ($5,000
per month for three years + $2,424 per month for first and
second mortgages where husband grossed $600,000) to
$800,000 per year. Assignment of $52,000 credit card debt to
wife was also reversed because at least $18,000 of the debt
was for two rugs, of which the husband received one and the
debt was in the husband's name. The Court of Appeals also
reversed the attorney fee award of only 22% of wife's attorney
fees as the trial court did not enumerate any of the factors set
out in Sexton v. Sexton.

Dobson v. Dobson, 159 SW3d 335 (Ky.App., 2004)

Dobson v. Dobson, 159 SW3d 335 (Ky.App., 2004)
Spouse granted innocent spouse relief by the IRS is
not entitled to res judicata and trial court assignment
of tax deficiency 40% to innocent spouse was upheld.
Tax audit has uncovered a tax deficiency, but trial court
reasoned that the parties benefited from the lower tax burden
and innocent spouse was later required to pay the share of
taxes for which she would have been responsible had the
deductions not been disallowed.