Divorce Law Journal

Gaskill V. Robbins, Goodwill In Business Value, 50/50 Property Division

GASKILL V. ROBBINS DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY, GOODWILL 2007-SC-000190-DGE PUBLISHED: AFFIRMED PANEL: NOBLE PRESIDING; CUNNINGHAM, SCHRODER, VENTERS AND SCOTT CONCUR; ABRAMSON CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART COUNTY: WARREN DATE RENDERED: 2/13/2009

SC considered whether the goodwill of a closely held or sole proprietorship business can have both personal and enterprise values, and whether TC improperly assumed that it must make a 50-50 division of the marital assets.

FACTS: During the marriage, Wife worked as owner and sole practitioner of an oral and maxillofacial surgery practice, while Husband worked as a salaried employee with several businesses. At the time of trial, the parties had amassed a marital estate of over $4 million, including the value of the practice at about $670,000. Wife earned about 90% of the income during the marriage, and testimony indicated that she was very hard-working and responsible both for management of the office and patient acquisition, although Husband did provide minor assistance with the business. At trial, Wife’s expert testified that, on an asset-based analysis, the practice was worth about $221,000, which included a value of $0 for goodwill of the business because Wife’s role in the business amounted to a “non-marketable controlling interest.” Husband’s expert used the average of the values derived from four different methodologies, assuming the existence of Wife’s non-compete agreement and goodwill, and arrived at a value of $670,000. TC accepted Husband’s expert’s valuation, relying on the premise that there was no authority for the distinction between personal and enterprise goodwill in Kentucky law. CA reversed on TC’s goodwill ruling because it believed TC was under incorrect impression that goodwill must be assigned a value greater than $0, and it recognized that not all businesses have goodwill. TC determined that marital property should be divided 50-50, relying on the parties’ equal contribution to the marital estate, including duties at home and raising their child, as well as Wife’s greater ability to rebuild her estate.

ANALYSIS: Valuation of Goodwill: If the reputation of a business will draw customers and get them to return, the business has goodwill. Previous KY cases recognize that everything of value in a business, including transferable goodwill, must be counted. None of those cases recognized a distinction between personal and enterprise goodwill, but they did not prohibit the distinction. Enterprise goodwill is based on the intangible, but generally marketable, existence in a business of established relations with employees, customers, and suppliers. On the other hand, much like professional degrees, personal goodwill is nontransferable, belonging primarily or only to the individual. If the value of a business is to be decided on a fair and reasonable basis, and property divided equitably, this must be considered. SC found that the skill, personality, work ethic, reputation, and relationships developed by Wife are hers alone and cannot be sold to a subsequent practitioner. This personal goodwill is nonmarital property that will continue with her regardless of the presence of any spouse. SC held that to consider this personal goodwill as marital property would effectively attach her future earnings, to which Husband has no claim. Further, if Husband were then awarded maintenance, this would amount to double-dipping and cause a dual inequity to Wife. Lastly, SC recognized that the distinction between enterprise and personal goodwill is as susceptible to expert valuation as goodwill on the whole is.
Valuation Methods: SC held that using an average of values to obtain a value of a business, without some basis other than an inability to choose between conflicting and competing valuation methods, is nothing more than making up a number, for there is no evidentiary basis to support that specific number. The trial court must fix a value, and there should be an evidence-based articulation for why that is the value used. Further, the business must be valued in its existing state, and a non-existing non-compete clause cannot be considered.
Equitable Division of Marital Property: TC recognized that there is no presumption of a 50-50 division without regard to the evidence. However, SC held that because a court must divide the property in “just proportions,” starting the parties off in an even position in order to determine how to apportion is not unreasonable, provided that TC considers all the relevant factors of KRS 403.190. This statute requires consideration of each spouse’s contribution to acquiring the marital estate, and here, Wife clearly contributed more monetarily than Husband did. However, the ability to work with the support of a spouse/co-parent is an intangible that goes beyond dollars. Within the marital arrangement, abilities are often unequal, the use of one’s time varies according to present need, and each spouse does things to accommodate the other. How the parties earn money and build wealth is affected by these variables, but is done for common purpose. Thus, SC held, the term “contribution” has tangible and intangible components that must be weighed by TC. Furthermore, in its division of property, TC should also consider parties’ ability to earn after divorce, and Wife clearly has the advantage here.

CA’s decision re goodwill and TC’s valuation and division of practice affirmed on other grounds, and TC’s 50-50 division of property affirmed. Remanded to TC to determine value of practice and divide marital estate.

DISSENT IN PART BY ABRAMSON: If expert testimony establishes that covenants not to compete are an integral part of a sale of a profession practice, as they typically are, the expert should be able to take them into account in assessing the value of the practice.

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

Fehr v. Fehr, KY COA, Jurisdiction, Restoration Of Nonmarital Property

FEHR V. FEHR
2007-CA-001495
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING AND REMANDING IN PART
THOMPSON PRESIDING
COUNTY: OLDHAM
DATE RENDERED: 10/3/2008

ISSUES PRESENTED:
Ex-Husband appealed TC’s decision awarding Ex-Wife a villa and a one-half marital interest in a mini-storage warehouse located in the Netherlands Antilles, alleging that he should have received his nonmarital interest in those properties. Ex-Wife contended that TC lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the property located in the Netherlands Antilles, or alternatively, that the law of that country should apply to the division of the property. She also challenged the admission of appraisals performed by an unlicensed real estate agent.

FACTS:
The parties were married on August 7, 2000, in the Netherland Antilles. Both were KY residents at the time and Ex-Husband continued to reside in KY throughout the marriage. During the marriage, Ex-Wife primarily resided in St. Maarten but did not change her United States citizenship. In June 2004, Ex-Husband filed a petition for dissolution in KY, asserting his KY residence. Ex-Wife admitted in her Response that she had been a KY resident for several years, and subsequently filed documents in the record demonstrating that her domicile was within the U.S. Ex-Wife did not object to the jurisdiction of the Oldham TC until two years after the petition was filed. The parties were equal shareholders a mini-warehouse storage company, incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Netherlands Antilles. The corporation was formed prior to the marriage. Ex-Husband made a total pre-marital investment of $110,693 to this property, while Ex-Wife invested $60,000 in the purchase of the property prior to the marriage and managed the property since the purchase. The parties also owned a villa in St. Maarten, titled in a company organized under the laws of the country of Anguilla and of which Ex-Wife was the sole director. Ex-Wife invested $101,000 from the sale proceeds of her pre-marital home towards the purchase of the villa, while Ex-Husband contributed $217, 000 of non-marital funds to the purchase. A St. Maarten real estate broker appraised the villa at $705,000 and the warehouse business at $585,000. He was not a licensed appraiser but testified that licensure is not customary in the Netherland Antilles.
TC found that the warehouse was a joint business venture, declared it to be marital property, and equally divided the parties’ interests. Despite the evidence that both parties contributed nonmarital funds toward the purchase of the villa, TC made an “equitable decision to award the entirety of the property to Ex-Wife, stating that such a decision was made in consideration of several factors, including the contribution of each party to the home, the difficulties in enforcing a Kentucky judgment as it relates to the St. Maarten property; and that TC ordered no maintenance paid from Ex-Husband to Ex-Wife.

JURISDICTION:
Because both parties were Kentucky domiciliaries, CA concluded that TC had subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the parties to grant the dissolution. Ex-Wife objected to the assertion of TC’s jurisdiction, due to TC’s lack of power to decide the parties’ interest in the St. Maarten property, thus claiming TC’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or otherwise conferred by the parties. It either exists or it is absent. Although it is well established law that KY courts are without jurisdiction to settle title or possessory rights to land outside the Commonwealth, it is equally accepted that a court may, through an in personam decree, affect title to land in another state. CA held that by virtue of TC’s personal jurisdiction over the parties, it had the authority and power to indirectly affect the property by compelling the conveyance of the interest, though an action 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.

REAL ESTATE EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS:
Ex-Wife contended that the testimony of the real estate broker was inadmissible because he was not licensed in accordance with Kentucky law. CA held that KY statutory regulation of real estate appraisers does not supersede the Rule of Civil Procedure placing qualification of expert witnesses within the discretion of TC based on the witnesses’ knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education. Although a statutory license requirement is relevant to TC’s determination, the lack of a license does not render the testimony inadmissible.

ALLOCATION OF NONMARITAL PROPERTY
A proper inquiry into the division of property begins with a three-step process: (1) TC first characterizes each item of property as marital or nonmarital; (2) then assigns each party's nonmarital property to that party; and (3) finally, equitably divides the marital property between the parties. When property consists of both marital and nonmarital contributions and has increased in value during the marriage, the reason for the increase in nonmarital property value must be determined. If attributable solely to economic conditions, the increase is nonmarital. If the increase is the result of the joint efforts of the parties it is considered marital property subject to division in equitable proportions.
With regard to the division of the warehouse business, CA held that while Ex-Husband contributed more than Ex-Wife financially, she contributed a corresponding amount in her effort as manager of the business both before and during the marriage so that her nonmarital contribution as manager of the property was equal to the monetary contribution of non-marital funds contributed by Ex-Husband. Thus, TC did not err in awarding each party a one-half interest in that asset.
With regard to the villa, CA held that TC’s award of the villa to Ex-Wife is inconsistent with KRS 403.190 and the three-step process required to be applied. Because TC found that Ex-Husband and Ex-Wife made nonmarital contributions to the purchase of the villa, it was required to award each their respective nonmarital interests in the property. Only after it has restored each party their nonmarital interest are the factors delineated in KRS
403.200 and an award of maintenance, if any, appropriate. CA stated that TC is not permitted to circumvent KRS 403.190 in lieu of a maintenance award.
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

Gripshover v. Gripshover (Ky) Nonmarital Property, Estate Planning, Child Support, Section 179 Expense, Imputed Income

Gripshover v. Gripshover, __ S.W.3d __ (Ky. 2008), 2005-SC-000729-DG and 2006-SC-000256-DG

Husband and his brother owned a farming operation, realty totaling over 600 acres, and a promissory note for more than a million dollars. They formed two limited partnerships: 1) a real estate partnership with their wives that would hold and manage the realty, and 2) a partnership to manage the farming operation. The brothers also assigned their partnership interests to two trusts. The wife signed documents allowing said transfers. The Supreme Court granted discretionary review to consider the validity of the partnership and trust into which the parties transferred a large portion of their estate less than a year prior to the filing of the petition for divorce, as well as to review the child support and maintenance awards.

Real estate partnership and trust: There was no evidence that either party was contemplating divorce at the time the estate plan was executed or that the husband’s intent was to impair the wife’s marital rights. Therefore, the wife had not been defrauded, as she knowingly and voluntarily consented to the estate plan. The COA erred in holding that the wife retained an interest in the realty and that it was subject to division as marital property. The wife’s argument that the estate plan should be set aside due to the husband retaining control over the realty and not truly giving it to the trust is without merit. SC noted that the wife did not join the necessary parties to challenge the validity of the partnership and trust. Moreover, SC held there was nothing wrong with the brothers retaining control of the realty for the purpose of use in the farming operation. The realty was not transferred to the trust, but instead the partner’s interest in the partnership. Thus, the realty was validly removed from the marital estate and was not subject to division.

Husband’s nonmarital interest in the promissory note: Wife argues that husband’s entire half of the note is marital, since the other siblings quit-claimed their interests to the three remaining siblings (one being the husband) in 1987 (parties married in 1988) for no consideration. Wife argued that because the siblings gave up their interests for no consideration, the property should be regarded as having no equity at that point, and that all equity in the property was acquired after the marriage. The court rejected this argument, especially since in 1989 a small portion of the land was sold for more than the outstanding indebtedness which adequately established that the property increased in value as a result of economic factors alone.

Child support and maintenance: The parties’ incomes were wrongly determined. TC erred in allowing the husband to calculate his income for child support purposes using 26 U.S.C. sec. 179 expense deductions. Section 179 provides an alternative to standard, straight line depreciation, which KRS 403.212(2)(c) mandates as the only allowable method. TC also erred in imputing the wife with $360 per week of income, a level of income well above what she achieved when she was younger and in much better health. TC did not adequately consider all of the statutory factors in KRS 403.212(2)(d). Therefore, SC held that both child support and maintenance must be reconsidered.
Digested by Sarah Jost Nielsen, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Jones v. Jones (Ky) Income On NonMarital Property, Increase In Value Of Nonmarital Property, Maintenance

Jones v. Jones, ___S.W.3d___ (Ky. App. 2008)

Ex-Husband appealed TC’s orders classifying his Tobacco Transition Payment Program (TTPP) payments and a portion of the increase in value of his life estate as marital and awarding maintenance and attorney’s fees to Ex-Wife in divorce proceeding.

Prior to the parties’ 18 year marriage, Ex-Husband inherited from his grandfather a life estate in a farm consisting of 215 acres. During the marriage, the parties resided in a residence located on the farm, and Ex-Husband conducted farming operations thereupon. The parties entered into a prenuptial agreement prior to marriage.

In its orders regarding division of property, TC treated future TTPP payments to be made to Ex-Husband as owner of the life estate as marital property in order to effectuate an equitable division of property. CA found that TC erred as a matter of law by classifying the TTPP payments as marital property in order to effectuate a fair distribution of property. The classification of property as marital or nonmarital is not discretionary. CA further found that TTPP owner payments should have been classified as Ex-Husband’s nonmarital property. The TTPP owner payments represent compensation from the government for the taking of the property interest in the tobacco grower’s tobacco quotas. As Ex-Husband inherited the tobacco quotas from his grandfather, they were nonmarital, and the compensation received for them is also nonmarital.

CA also found that future TTPP payments to be made to Ex-Husband as a grower of tobacco should also be classified as Ex-Husband’s nonmarital property. Finding that these TTPP payments supplant income traditionally received from the sale of tobacco, CA found these payments to be properly classified as income. As the income from the sale of tobacco would have been classified as Ex-Husband’s nonmarital property pursuant to the parties’ prenuptial agreement, the grower TTPP payments were also his nonmarital property.

TC found that the parties made substantial improvements to the farm with marital assets, thus the life estate in the farm had a marital component. TC found the actual cost of improvements to the farm totaled $67,000.00, that these improvements were paid for with marital assets, and then adjusted the $67,000 by Ex-Husband's “life estate valuation formula” and concluded the marital property interest was $44,648.00. CA noted that under KRS 403.190(2)(e), any increase in value of property acquired before marriage is nonmarital unless the increase in value is attributed to “the efforts of the parties during marriage.” CA found that TC clearly erred when it equated actual cost of improvements to the life estate in the farm with increase in value to the life estate in the farm. To properly calculate the increase in value attributed to marital improvements upon property acquired before marriage, CA provided that the court must subtract the fair market value of the property at the time of dissolution without marital improvements from the fair market value of the property at the time of dissolution with marital improvements. The difference between such fair market values yields the increase in value attributed to marital improvements upon the property. As to a life estate acquired before marriage, a party may be compensated for the increased value attributed to marital improvements thereon, not to exceed the value of the improvements. Furthermore, when determining the fair market value (FMV) of real property with improvements and without improvements, expert opinion is ordinarily necessary. To be qualified to express an opinion upon FMV of real property, a witness, including the owner thereof, must possess some basis for knowledge of market values. The mere ownership of property does not qualify a lay person to give an opinion upon market value. The actual cost of improvements may be considered as evidence bearing upon FMV but should not be the sole factor. CA noted that if the parties come to the end of their proof with grossly insufficient evidence on the value of the property involved, TC should either order this proof to be obtained, appoint his own experts to furnish this value, at the cost of the parties, or direct that the property be sold. CA directed TC, upon remand, to calculate the marital increase in value of the life estate in the farm by subtracting FMV of the farm at the time of dissolution without marital improvements from the FMV of the farm at the time of dissolution with marital improvements, then, adjust this amount by a life estate valuation formula, but in no event shall the compensation for the marital increase in value to a life estate exceed the value of the improvements thereon.

Ex-Husband also contends TC erred by awarding maintenance to Ex-Wife. As entitlement and amount of maintenance are dependent upon the marital and nonmarital property allocated to the party for a determination of whether the claimant has sufficient resources for her support, CA ruled that Ex-Wife’s maintenance award must also be vacated for reconsideration as part of the underlying property award was reversed on appeal.

Ex-Husband finally contends TC abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees to Ex-Wife. Based upon the apparent imbalance of financial resources between the parties, CA found no abuse of discretion in TC’s award to Ex-Wife of a portion of her attorney’s fees.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Digested by Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates.

Heskett v. Heskett (Ky) Settlement Agreements, Marital/Nonmarital Property, Dissipation

Heskett v. Heskett, ___S.W.3d___(Ky. App. 2008)

Wife appealed TC’s decision arguing that the court failed to restore her non-marital property. CA reversed and remanded, on a separate issue. CA opined that the TC was correct the property was marital but the TC erred because it failed to consider the issue of dissipation.
Husband and Wife separated in 2002. They drafted a settlement agreement but never signed the agreement. They did, however, divided the property and then began a physical separation. After several months of separation the couple reconciled and bought a house. As a down payment on the house Wife withdrew over $60,000 from CD’s purchased with her share of the previous property division. Husband contributed $8,500 to the purchase of the house from his portion of the property division. Again, however, the couple separated and Wife filed for divorce.
At the conclusion of trial the TC ordered Wife to pay Husband an equal share of the equity in the martial residence. Wife appealed and argued that the settlement agreement from the previous separation should control the classification and distribution of property. Therefore, she argued the money she used as a down payment on the house was her non-marital money and should be restored to her. CA opined that the TC was correct in its determination that the money was marital. CA reasoned that while the parties drafted an agreement during the first separation they never signed the agreement. Therefore, the agreement was not valid under KRS 403.180. Furthermore, when the couple reconciled the previous agreement was voided and not revived by the second separation. However, the CA went on to say that the TC erred because it did not consider the issue of dissipation.
At trial, Wife presented extensive evidence tracing her share of the assets received as a result the first separation. Husband, however, introduce virtually no evidence tracing his share of the assets. In fact, the trial court noted that it was unclear what Husband had done with his share. However, the TC divided the couple’s assets equally. The CA opined that, in the instant case, an equal distribution was not a just distribution. Husband’s inability to account for the majority of his share of the assets received during the first separation constituted dissipation of the marital estate. Therefore, Wife was entitled to have the money she used as a down payment on the marital residence restored to her. Digested by Linda Dixon Bullock, 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

Hibdon v. Hibdon, Valuation (KY) Of Defined Benefit Pension Plan

Hibdon v. Hibdon, ___ S. W. 3d ___(Ky. App. 2007)

Husband appealed from order of the Bullitt County Circuit Court (TC), confirming Domestic Relations Commissioner’s (DRC's) report, dividing his pension plan with Ex-wife, contending that TC erred in its computation of the present value of the plan.

Husband and Ex-Wife were married for 27 years. Husband began earning his pension benefits shortly after the parties married. The primary disagreement between the parties concerned the present value of Husband’s defined benefits pension plan. However, at the hearing on this issue, only Ex-Wife offered evidence in regard to the calculation of the plan's value. Included in Ex-Wife's evidence was a pension valuation which utilized the monthly benefit amount Husband would receive if he continued to work until his normal retirement age, multiplied by 174 months (Husband’s post-retirement life expectancy), and then discounted to present value by 2.25% per local rule. DRC’s findings of fact and conclusions of law concluded that Husband’s pension plan had a value equal to that calculated by Wife, to be discounted for present value by 2.25%, and the entirety of that amount was marital property. DRC did not explain how he arrived at a 2.25% annual discount rate, nor does the rule allow for the Commissioner to explain the influence of the annual inflation rate or other essential data required to provide a competent analysis of the pension plan's present value.

After no exceptions were filed within ten days, TC adopted DRC’s report in its entirety. Husband then filed a motion pursuant to CR 59.05 to alter or amend TC’s order adopting DRC’s report, asserting that DRC accepted Ex-Wife’s erroneous evidence regarding the value of his pension plan. TC assigned matter to DRC for a recommendation as to whether TC’s order should be altered or amended. After hearing, DRC filed his report recommending that Husband’s CR 59.05 motion be denied because he had not offered any new evidence which was not readily available to him at the property division hearing. Before TC could act on the recommendation, Husband filed a motion for a hearing to contest DRC’s valuation of his pension plan. TC adopted DRC’s recommendation to deny the first CR 59.05 motion and denied Husband’s motion for hearing. This appeal followed.

Ex-Wife argues that Husband’s failures to offer evidence of the present value of the pension and to timely file exceptions to DRC’s report are fatal to his appeal. CA disagreed, finding that TC abdicated its discretion to DRC and erred by adopting a present day value of Husband’s pension plan which was not supported by competent evidence. Further, even if Husband insufficiently preserved the issue for review, a palpable error affecting the substantial rights of an individual resulting in manifest injustice is reviewable, even if insufficiently raised or preserved.
Although the evidence as to the value of the pension was limited and offered only by Ex-Wife, CA held that, as a matter of law, the value assigned to the pension plan was clearly erroneous and the error so serious that it must be considered palpable. TC miscalculated the present value of his pension plan by allowing Husband’s post-divorce earnings to be included in the calculation of the present value of the pension plan. Because Ex-Wife's share of the pension was limited to her interest in its accumulated value earned during the marriage, TC abused its discretion by allowing Ex-Wife to receive a share of the pension which included Husband’s post-divorce earnings. Reversed and remanded for a new hearing to determine the marital distribution of Husband’s pension as of the date of the parties’ divorce.

CA noted that Bullitt County’s local rule regarding establishment of present day value of a pension negates the requirement of expert testimony and is not based upon accepted accounting or economic principles, and that entry of a QDRO dividing the pension would be simpler and is a preferable method of division of pensions.

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

Gripshover Oral Arguments Rescheduled

We previously posted here about oral arguments and posted the briefs in Gripshover. Thanks to Kentucky Court Reports for posting the updated schedule for oral arguments, now set to be held December 14, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. Here's the link to check out the oral arguments online. From KCR:

GRIPSHOVER V. GRIPSHOVER (2005-SC-000729-DG)
AND (CROSS-MOTION) GRIPSHOVER V. GRIPSHOVER
(2006-SC-000256-DG)
"Domestic Relations. Dissolution of Marriage. Division of Real Property. Issues include the extent and divisibility of marital interest in real property that has been placed in an irrevocable trust and the application of Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 617 S.W.2d 871 (Ky. App. 1981)."
Discretionary review granted 3/15/2006 and 6/7/2006
Boone Circuit Court, Judge Linda Bramlage
For Movant/Cross-Respondent: David A. Koenig
For Respondent/Cross-Movant: D. Anthony Brinker
(Note: Justice Schroder is recused)
(Rescheduled from August 15, 2007)

Croft v. Croft, KY, Marital/Nonmarital property, Maintenance

Croft v. Croft, ___S.W.3d__(Ky. App. 2007)

Wife appealed an order dividing marital property, denying maintenance, and restoring non-marital property. First, Wife argued that the TC erred in finding that the marital residence was Husband’s non-marital property. CA agreed with Wife and reversed and remanded on this issue. Husband purchased the house and adjoining lot before the couple was married. However, the mortgage was paid off after the marriage, with marital funds. CA reasoned that the TC should have acknowledged this fact and apportioned some of the value of the property as marital. Also, the couple made several, post marriage, improvements to the house. Therefore, Wife claimed the increase in value should be considered marital property. Husband argued that the improvements were just regular maintenance and “were not substantial enough to warrant an increase in value.” CA opined that a TC needs only to determine that the increase in value was due to improvements and not just economic conditions in order for the property to qualify as marital property. Absent clear and convincing evidence that the increased value was due to economic conditions alone the property should be considered marital.
Next, Wife argued it was error for the TC to deny her claim for permanent maintenance. TC held that considering the length of the marriage ( the parties were married in 1997) and the division of property maintenance was not appropriate. CA held that the TC’s decision was not an abuse of discretion because it was supported by substantial evidence.
Finally, Wife argued that the TC erred because it did not divide the property proportionately. CA held that the TC did not err in its division of property. CA opined that husband had presented sufficient evidence that certain items in his possession were his non-marital property. Additionally, wife provided no evidence that any of that property was marital.
Digested by Linda Dixon Bullock, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates