Divorce Law Journal

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

Kentucky Supreme Court Accepts Discretionary Review In Personal v. Enterprise Goodwill Case

The Kentucky Supreme Court accepted discretionary review of Gaskill v. Robbins, digested here, and about which we reported here and here. It was announced at the UK Biennial Family Law Institute in Lexington today that the briefing schedule is expedited. (And, Justice Keller, Professor Graham did communicate your views, as ordered.)

New Divorce Law Re Pets In California

Linking to the bill, John Harding of California Divorce Blawg reports Power To The Pets

On September 11, 2007 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 353 amending Family Code §6320 to provide that a Court, upon a showing a good cause, may grant exclusive care of any animal to a party, and may further restrain the other party from taking, attacking or harming the animal.

Clark v. Clark, Maintenance, Marital And Nonmarital Property

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

DESIGNATED TO BE PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING IN PART; VACATING AND REMANDING IN PART
PANEL: ACREE PRESIDING; KELLER AND LAMBERT CONCURRING;
COUNTY: JEFFERSON
DATE RENDERED: 9/21/2007

Ex-Wife appealed from TC’s Order assigning value to a 2002 Ford Taurus, not valuing or dividing certain certificates of deposit (CD’s) and reducing her maintenance. Parties separated after eighteen years of marriage. At the time of their divorce, Ex-Wife was 70 years old and Ex-Husband was 78. Prior to their marriage, Ex-Husband owned a home, land and livestock. Ex-Husband sold his livestock shortly after the marriage and purchased CD’s with the proceeds. During their marriage, the parties lived on Ex-Husband's social security and pension benefits and, once Ex-Wife reached 62, her social security benefits.

While Ex-Wife's dissolution petition was pending, Ex-Husband was ordered to pay $300.00 per month pendente lite maintenance. After trial, TC found a Taurus to be marital property and awarded it to Ex-Wife with a value of $12,000.00. The CD’s were neither assigned nor awarded since Ex-Wife failed to present any evidence that they existed at the time of the parties' divorce. After dividing all marital property, TC reduced Ex-Wife's maintenance award to a monthly sum of $100.00. Ex-Wife filed this appeal. Subsequently, Ex-Wife filed a CR 60.02 Motion for TC to consider new evidence reflecting that Ex-Husband had cashed out CD’s prior to dissolution but after separation. TC denied this motion. CA indicated that any appeal of that Motion must be separate from this appeal.

Ex-Wife first argues the trial court abused its discretion when it assumed facts not in evidence about the value of the 2002 Ford Taurus, and further arguing that Ex-Husband had purchased the car as a gift for her and, thus, it was not marital property within the definition of Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 403.190(2). At trial, Ex-Husband disputed that the Taurus was purchased as a gift to Ex-Wife and, indeed, the car was titled in both parties' names. At trial, neither party testified as to the current value of the Taurus. TC found that Ex-Wife failed to meet her burden of proving that the car was her nonmarital property. The car was awarded to Ex-Wife and assigned the $12,000.00 value listed as its NADA book value in Ex-Husband's mandatory case disclosure. Ex-Wife contends it was incumbent upon Ex-Husband to introduce evidence of the car's value at trial, since he argued it was a marital asset, citing CR 43.01(1), which states, “The party holding the affirmative of an issue must produce the evidence to prove it.” Ex-Wife claimed Ex-Husband’s failure to introduce evidence of its value at trial deprived her of the opportunity to refute this figure. Thus, she argues the burden of refuting the Taurus' supposed value of $12,000.00 never fell to her. She asked CA to assign a value of zero dollars to the car or, in the alternative, to allow her to present evidence contradicting the value assigned by TC. CA disagreed with Ex-Wife’s contentions. CA noted that Ex-Wife had filed her own MCD but failed to assign any value to the Taurus because she contended it was her nonmarital property value as $12,000.00, was filed in the record on June 30, 2004. Ex-Wife had notice that Ex-Husband was characterizing the car as marital property and also of its asserted value. It appears that, instead of introducing her own evidence regarding the car's value, Ex-Wife relied on her ability to persuade TC of the car's nonmarital character. CA found no error in TC’s decision on this issue.

Ex-Wife next argues that TC’s division should have recognized and divided the CD’s between the parties. At trial, Ex-Wife introduced records showing existence of CD’s in 2001. She did not testify to the source of the funds, and offered no proof that the CD’s still existed. Ex-Husband testified that all of the funds used to purchase the CD’s came from the sale of his nonmarital livestock and that the CD’s were exhausted during the marriage.TC found that it was unable to award or assign an asset whose existence was unproven. Ex-Wife asked CA to consider evidence she presented in support of her CR 60.02 motion that Ex-Husband had cashed out the CD’s shortly after the parties separated. However, CA noted that it had issued a previous order that issues related to this Motion must be contained to a timely appeal of that Motion, and Ex-Wife failed to timely appeal that Motion. CA found no error in TC’s order on this issue.

Finally, Ex-Wife argued TC abused its discretion when it reduced her maintenance award, as it set her permanent maintenance so low that she would be dependent upon others for the means to meet her basic needs. At trial, Ex-Wife told TC that she was currently obliged to live with her daughter, and, as a result, TC subtracted her rent and telephone bills from her monthly living expenses. CA held that a TC’s failure to award a sum sufficient to allow a spouse to meet her needs without requiring that she depend on the generosity of family and friends was plainly an abuse of discretion. CA held that TC clearly erred, as its Order did not address the issue of Ex-Wife's current standard of living versus the lifestyle she shared with Ex-Husband during their marriage. TC’s order affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions to TC to review maintenance award.
As digested by Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates.

Shown v. Shown, Teacher's Retirement Exclusion Where Other Spouse Has SEP IRA

Shown v. Shown, ___S.W.3d__ (Ky. 2007)

PUBLISHED: REVERSING
PANEL: SCOTT PRESIDING; MINTON, NOBLE AND SCHRODER CONCURRING; CUNNINGHAM CONCURRING IN RESULT ONLY; ABRAMSON NOT SITTING
COUNTY: OHIO
DATE RENDERED: 9/20/2007

Ex-Wife appealed to SC from CA opinion that affirmed TC’s order providing that Ex-Husband’s Kentucky Teacher's Retirement Account would be fully excluded from classification and division of the parties’ marital property pursuant to KRS 161.700(2). Ex-Wife argued to SC that both TC and CA erred in failing to give effect to the provisions set forth in KRS 403.190(4).

At time of trial, Ex-Husband had approximately $81,410 in his KTRS account while Ex-Wife had approximately $1,896 in her Fidelity Simplified Employee Pension (SEP-IRA). Ex-Husband argued to TC that his KTRS account was exempt from classification and division as marital property under KRS 161.700(2), while Ex-Wife argued her SEP-IRA qualified as a retirement account and therefore KRS 403.190(4) overrode KRS 161.700(2) and operated to limit the amount of the KTRS funds that Ex-Husband could claim as exempt. CA affirmed TC’s opinion, holding that KRS 403.190(4) and KRS 161 .700(2) were in conflict, and thus, pursuant to principles of statutory construction, the exemption provisions set forth in KRS 161.700(2) would control over the provisions set forth in KRS 403.190(4). CA held that, alternatively, KRS 403.190(4) is inapplicable unless both spouses have an account that qualifies as a "retirement-benefit" as is defined in KRS 403.190(4), and held that Ex-Wife’s SEP-IRA was not such a "retirement benefit" as defined in that statute.

SC found no conflict between the two statutes. SC held that KRS 161.700(2) specifically exempted the KTRS retirement benefits accumulated by Ex-Husband during the marriage from being classified and divided upon divorce, but that the language set forth in KRS 403.190(4) clearly anticipates statutes such as KRS 161.700(2) and thus, by the plain language of the statute, KRS 403.190(4) is meant to be read in conjunction, not in conflict with, KRS 161.700(2). Furthermore, SC held that any retirement plan that is covered by ERISA is subject to the application of KRS 403.190(4), and as Ex-Wife’s SEP IRA was an employer funded plan covered by ERISA, KRS 403.190(4) applied to the classification and divisibility of the parties’ retirement accounts.
Digested by Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates.

Shively v. Shively, Division of Marital Property, Post Separation Team Effort

Shively v. Shively,___S.W.3d___(Ky. App. 2007)

Ex-Wife appealed TC’s division of marital property, arguing that division was not in “just proportions,” as TC’s division of property earned between date of separation and date of decree was not equal. While working full-time for Brown & Williamson during marriage, Ex-Husband attended law school and Brown & Williamson paid his law-school tuition and expenses. In 2003, he began work at a law firm where B&W was his primary client while B&W closed its Louisville, KY offices to move out of state. Ex-Husband’s income drastically increased as a result of this work to over $500,000 in 2004. However, by the time of the trial, B&W’s move was nearly complete and Ex-Husband received very little income from this source and was building up a construction law practice. During the marriage and at the time of the trial, Ex-Wife was employed as a senior tax manager, earning approximately $115,000 annually. After the parties’ separation in October 2004, Ex-Wife discontinued contributions to utilities and mortgage payments on the marital residence, and both parties continued to share homemaker and parenting duties until the time of trial. TC equally divided property earned up to the date of separation; however, although it declared that the property earned between the date of separation and the date of decree was marital property, it allocated a substantially larger portion of this marital property to Ex-Husband. TC found that equal division of the property earned up to the date of separation would leave each party in good financial circumstances and that it was “just” to allow each party to keep the income earned after the date of separation and the assets purchased with that income.
Ex-Wife first contended to CA that unequal distribution of post-separation income and assets did not represent a division in “just proportions.” CA disagreed with Ex-Wife that post-separation assets must be divided in same proportion as pre-separation assets or divided equally. Citing Stallings v. Stallings, CA noted that making a division in “just proportions” requires TC to consider the factors of 403.190(1)(a)-(d), one factor of which requires consideration of the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property. CA found that TC properly considered these factors in making its division, and found no error.
Ex-Wife also contended that TC failed to consider her contribution to Ex-Husband’s law degree when dividing the post-separation assets. CA noted that, although a professional degree is not marital property, it can be considered an asset of the marriage in determining the parties’ respective contributions when dividing marital property. CA held that TC appropriately considered Ex-Wife’s claim to contribution towards the law degree, and that TC properly rejected her claim, as Ex-Husband’s law school tuition was paid for by B&W, the degree was obtained without a break in his employment, he continued parenting duties while in law school, and Ex-Wife continued to advance her career during that time. TC’s division of property affirmed.
Digested by Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates.

Kleet v. Kleet, Marital and Nonmarital Property

Kleet v. Kleet

Husband appealed circuit court order awarding wife 80% of marital assets actually in the possession of the parties at the time of the divorce. Husband made four major claims. First, husband claimed the court erred in not awarding him his non-marital assets and holding that he had failed to meet his burden of proving those assets were non-marital. Husband produced some documentation with regards to the non-marital assets. The circuit court, however, found that he selectively produced documents and claimed not to be able to produce other documents. CA opined that this was not clearly erroneous and also upheld the circuit court’s finding that husband’s expert witness’ testimony was flawed. The expert did not attempt to do a traditional tracing. Instead, she used an approximate growth rate, the parties’ joint tax returns, depositions of each party, and interviews with husband to produce a forensic tracing. According to the CA, she testified that, “by taking the income during the marriage and subtracting out the estimated yearly living expenses during the years of marriage, a percentage of non-marital to marital assets could be determined.” She then used the calculated percentage to determine marital and non-marital interest in stock purchased during the marriage. CA found this tracing method unsatisfactory and held that if husband failed to receive all of his non-marital property it was because he failed to meet his burden of proof.
Second, husband claimed it was error to find that he had dissipated marital assets. Husband gave two million dollars to his sister, brother-in-law, and accountant. Husband claimed he had always given monetary gifts and this was not dissipation. CA, however, found that husband was aware that there was a real possibility divorce was eminent and that he never informed wife of the gifts. Additionally, husband did not report the gifts on his gift tax return until after discovery. There was substantial evidence that husband tried to hide the gifts from wife.
Third, husband claimed the family court erred in dividing the property. Husband claimed wife was unsupportive and did not contribute to the marital home. Husband also claimed error in the family court finding that he had an interest in a Florida condominium. CA opined that the family court was in the best position to judge the evidence as to both of these facts and would not find the lower courts holding to be clearly erroneous.
Finally, husband claimed the family court failed to credit him monies paid to wife during litigation. CA found that this too did not constitute error. CA opined that they might have divided the martial assets differently. Regardless, they did not find the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the assets.

Digested by Linda Dixon Bullock, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Gripshover Oral Arguments Set August 15, 2007

Kentucky Supreme Court oral arguments are set for August 15, 2007 in Gripshover v. Gripshover, which we digested here. You will have to scroll down to "Marital Property" to read the digest, as that was posted when we were catching up on all 2005 Kentucky Court of Appeals decisions, as this blog wasn't in existence until February, 2006. From KyCases:

10:00 a.m. 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

Appellant's Brief
Appellee's Brief
Appellant's Reply Brief

Thanks so much, Mike, for posting the briefs. Now I hope SCOKYBLOG will post the oral arguments! This is a very interesting case. Movant claims 500 years of trust law stands in the balance.

Rhodes v. Pederson, Adjudication of Marital Property After Death of Party

RHODES V. PEDERSON
FAMILY LAW: ORDER ENTERED AFTER DEATH OF PARTY
2006-CA-000909
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING
PANEL: KELLER PRESIDING; COMBS, BUCKINGHAM CONCUR
COUNTY: LYON
DATE RENDERED: 7/6/2007

Wife’s daughter, also the personal representative of Wife’s estate, appealed TC’s order dismissing Wife and Husband’s dissolution action and denying her motion to be substituted as a party and to revive the dissolution action. The primary issue was whether TC could and should have entered a nunc pro tunc decree dissolving the marriage after Wife’s death and allowing her portion of the marital property and past due temporary maintenance payments to go to her estate. CA affirmed.

In April 2004, TC awarded Wife $6000 per month in temporary maintenance and ordered the sale of Husband’s business and the parties’ vacation home, noting that both constituted marital property. About one month later, Wife died. A few days after her death, TC entered an order noting Wife’s reported death the previous day and abating all orders requiring future action, including the sale of the marital assets. Subsequently, TC found that the real party in interest was Wife’s estate and provided the estate thirty days to enter an appearance for any matters pertaining to the claims of or against the estate. In August, Daughter notified TC that she was the personal representative of Wife’s estate and that she intended to revive the action.

Daughter argued that TC had already decided to dissolve the parties’ marriage and divide the property, and therefore, it erred when it failed to revive the action, to enter a decree of dissolution, or to equally distribute the marital property. She urged the application of principles of equity to prevent an injustice from occurring. She also contended that Wife’s right to maintenance had vested at the time of her death, despite Husband’s attempt to terminate this obligation. However, she backed her contentions with only one 1897 case involving a bigamous marriage.

CA noted that all of the remaining case Kentucky law clearly stands for the proposition that a divorce case is strictly personal, and that all other issues attending thereto are terminated upon the death of either party. The law is clear that only after a decree in divorce is granted, or perhaps a written separation agreement has been entered into by the parties, can the court continue to litigate the attending issues, including the equitable distribution of property. Only after a decree in divorce is granted, and thereafter one of the parties dies, can the court continue with the equitable distribution of marital property. If, on the other hand, TC had entered a decree, or if the judicial function had terminated without the formal entry of a decree, the death of a spouse would not affect the matter. CA noted one unpublished case in which CA approved entry of a nunc pro tunc order, but in that case, TC had orally granted a decree but the death occurred before the written decree could be prepared and signed. In that case, CA noted that the entry of the nunc pro tunc decree was proper to give the court's judicial act its proper meaning and effective date.

CA noted that there may remain other avenues of relief for Daughter, as existing orders for maintenance and property distribution may be pursued in a different forum. In essence, TC lost jurisdiction of the subject matter upon Wife’s death. CA provided that the nunc pro tunc rule may be used to make the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it did not speak but ought to have spoken.

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

Wife Entitled To $184 Million, 50%, In Illinois Decision Monday

Many equitable division states, including Kentucky, do not have an automatic equal division of marital property. Rather, marital property is divided in just proportions. Generally where wealth is involved, the greater the estate earned by the working spouse, the less likely the non-working spouse will receive 50%, particularly when their are no children. Some quotes from CNN.com:

Michael Polsky's attorneys contended that he was responsible for the couple's great wealth and said they will likely appeal Monday's decision.

"He intends to test this decision on appeal because he's always believed that this shouldn't have been a 50-50 split," attorney Joseph Tighe said.

David Meyer, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said the Polsky case is "remarkable and historic" because of the size of the award and Boyd's decision to split the estate equally.

"Those are huge numbers," Meyer said. "When you get these cases of extraordinary wealth, it really puts to the test this notion of marriage as a complete partnership."

Gaetano Ferro, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said he wasn't aware of a bigger award in the U.S.

Michael Polsky launched the company that eventually would become Northbrook-based SkyGen Energy, a leading independent power producer that sold in 2000 for about $450 million. He is now president and CEO of Invenergy Wind LLC, a Chicago-based wind energy company.

I share the sentiments of New YorK Divorce Report :"It is disappointing that this couple did not follow the lead of Blixseths, who divided their fortune amicably 'over a bottle of wine." He is referring to Tim and Edra Blixseth, the Beverly Hills couple who amicably divided their $2 billion fortune amassed during 25 years of marriage, as the Wall Street Journal reported:

Rather than fighting over every piece of silver, the Blixseths decided to keep what's most important to each of them and split the difference. Life's too short, they figured. And why give the lawyers all the money if you can work it out yourselves?

Briefs In Teacher's Retirement Case Before Kentucky Supreme Court

SCOKY Blog has posted the briefs here in the teacher's retirement case, Shown v. Shown, about which we posted here. Oral arguments are set June 14, 2007.

Intellectual Property

What does Intellectual Property have to do with divorce law? Well, if it is property and it has value the IP belongs on the asset division spreadsheet. Mediator Victoria Pynchon has launched the new IP ADR Blog on which she posts about the value of domain names, And While You're At It, Throw In The Domain Name.

Boone v. Ballinger

BOONE V. BALLINGER___S.W.3d___(Ky. App. 2007)
De facto custodian; doctrine of waiver and estoppel; Rebuttable presumption of paternity; Marital property (401k account)
2006-CA-001257
TO BE PUBLISHED: REVERSING AND REMANDING (ABRAMSON)
DATE RENDERED: 5/4/2007

Several months into dissolution proceedings, Kelly learned for the first time that the two youngest children born during his fifteen-year marriage to Melinda were not his biological daughters. Kelly had been a devoted father to the three-year-old and six-year-old girls, performing the majority of the everyday tasks related to their upbringing and essentially serving as their primary parent. Genetic testing revealed that the girls’ biological father was Melinda’s boss, Daniel, with whom Melinda had been having an affair for seven years. Daniel was a friend of the family and the godfather of the older girl. Both Melinda and Daniel acknowledged that when Melinda became pregnant with each girl, they realized that Daniel might be the father, but neither took any steps to learn the truth and they continued to allow Kelly to believe that he was the father of the girls and to act in that role until Melinda instigated divorce proceedings. Confronted with certified DNA results that established that Daniel was the biological father, Kelly sought de facto custodian status, relying on his central parenting role throughout the girls’ lives. The trial court concluded, after an evidentiary hearing, that Kelly was indeed the de facto custodian and further that Daniel and Melinda were estopped from denying that Kelly was the legal father of the girls.

De Facto Custodian:

On appeal, Melinda and Daniel challenged the trial court's application of KRS 403.270 and its resulting conclusion that Kelly is the girls' de facto custodian. They contend this statute was unavailable to Kelly since he was not the sole caregiver for the two girls but rather provided for them “alongside the natural parent (Melinda).” Following Consalvi v. Cawood, CA agreed with Daniel and Melinda, holding that “it is not enough that a person provide for a child alongside the parent” in order to qualify as a de facto custodian, but rather he must “literally stand in the place of the natural parent.” 63 S.W.3d 195 (Ky. App. 2001)

Waiver of Superior Custody Rights:

Though Kelly did not qualify for de facto custodian status under Kentucky law, CA held that Daniel’s conduct may preclude him from displacing Kelly altogether in the girls’ lives. Even after the adoption of the de facto custodian statute, Kentucky courts continue to recognize the applicability of the doctrine of waiver in a child custody dispute. Accordingly, CA held that on remand the trial judge should address whether Daniel has waived the typically superior custody rights of a biological father. The waiver of a parent's superior custodial right has previously been recognized in two distinct scenarios. CA held that this case presented a third factual scenario: waiver of a biological father's custodial right as against the husband to whom the mother was married when the child was born and who has been led to believe that he is the child's father. Daniel maintained that waiver cannot apply in this case because waiver necessarily entails a knowing and voluntary surrender of a known right. He claims no waiver could occur until he knew the girls were actually his biological daughters. CA disagreed, because Daniel was aware of the possibility at the time each child was born.

Emphasizing that the girls were always in their mother's custody, Daniel also sought to forestall application of the waiver doctrine by citing B.F. v. T.D., 194 S.W.3d 310 (Ky. 2006) for the proposition that waiver can only apply if the children are not in either parent's physical custody. B.F. involved a same-sex couple, one of whom adopted a child who was then raised by both of them. There was no marital dissolution involved when the couple discontinued their relationship, so the non-adopting partner tried to establish her de facto custodian status. She was unsuccessful and the trial court held that she had no standing to pursue custody. CA and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed, citing KRS 403.260(4) (repealed in 1980) which limits standing to initiate a custody proceeding to the parents and those who have physical custody of the child. However, CA held that B.F. did not preclude application of waiver in this case. Unlike the domestic partner in B.F who had no standing to initiate a custody proceeding and thus place the issue before a court, Melinda placed the custody issue before the trial court when she filed for dissolution; she and Kelly were parties to the proceeding as the girls' parents and Daniel, deemed a “necessary party” by the trial court, was allowed to intervene. At that juncture, all three adults were properly before the court and the issue of waiver was relevant to the standard required to gain custody. The factors to be considered when determining whether a parent has waived his or her superior custody right include: the length of time the child has been away from the parent, circumstances of separation, age of the child when care was assumed by the non-parent, time elapsed before the parent sought to claim the child, and frequency and nature of contact, if any, between the parent and the child during the non-parent's custody.

Doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel:

CA held that the doctrine of paternity by estoppel adopted in S.R.D. v. T.L.B., 174 S.W.3d 502 (Ky. App. 2005), would not apply so as to estop Daniel and Melinda from seeking a paternity determination. The trial court relied on S.R.D. v. T.L.B. in estopping Daniel and Melinda from challenging Kelly's legal father status. However, that case involved estopping a husband from severing a parental relationship with a daughter born during his marriage who was eventually determined not to be his biological child. Although that case had the same “misled husband” scenario as this case, estoppel was employed to preserve the relationship (both emotional and financial) between the child and the only father she had ever known, not to sever the biological father's rights to establish his genetic connection to the child. Moreover, if a biological father is to be precluded from establishing any legal relationship to his child born during the mother’s marriage to another man, or if he is to be limited in his options, CA stated that such preclusion or limitation must be established by the legislature. The Kentucky General Assembly has not adopted either Uniform Act or any other statutory mechanism curtailing the legal rights of a biological father where his child is born during the mother’s marriage to another man.

CA recognized that an inconsistency exists between Consalvi and the doctrine of paternity by estoppel that was adopted in S.R.D. The focus of “paternity by estoppel” is on the child and the parent-child relationship that has developed. On the other hand, Consalvi holds that a man who provides care and financial support alongside the mother cannot acquire de facto custodian status so as to maintain a father-child bond after the parties' divorce. This result, of course, completely ignores the parent-child relationship that may have developed, a relationship which S.R.D. considered paramount Therein lies the irony: if a misled husband decides to “run” in order to avoid any parental support obligations, he would be prohibited from doing so by S.R.D. and would remain financially bound to the child, but should he desire to “stay” and maintain a relationship with the child, Consalvi, literally applied, says that he cannot be the de facto custodian and is not entitled to custody or visitation. Fortunately, a man who was led to believe he is the father of a child born during his marriage may be able to maintain a relationship with the child in those instances where the biological father has waived his superior right to custody.

If the trial court, on remand, finds that Daniel waived a biological parent's superior right to custody, the result would be to place Kelly, a non-parent who would otherwise have no equivalent right, on an equal footing with Melinda and Daniel in matters concerning custody and visitation. Conversely, such a finding, though conveying standing on Kelly to seek custody and visitation, does not necessarily result in Daniel’s loss of his right to seek the same. Once a non-biological parent is deemed to have standing to seek custody vis-à-vis the biological parents, the ultimate decision by the trial court as to who will be awarded physical custody of a child is dependent upon the best interests of that child.

Division of 401(k) account and exempt KTRS account:

CA held that the trial court erred in deeming it marital property without considering Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 403.190(4). By application of KRS 161.700(2), Kelly's entire Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement Services account is exempt. The amount to which Melinda's 401(k) account may be exempted is governed by the limitation found in KRS 403.190(4), i.e. her account is exempt up to an amount that does not exceed the value of Kelly's KTRS account.

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

Ky Supreme Court Oral Arguments To Be Held June 14, 2007 In Teacher's Retirement Case On Discretionary Review

Shown v. Shown, 2004-CA-000988-MR. Discretionary review granted June 7, 2006; not for publication by operation of CR 76.28(4).
Here's the digest of the Court of Appeals decision:

Issue and Holding:
Whether husband’s entire Kentucky Teacher’s Retirement Account is exempt from division as marital property pursuant to KRS 161.700. The Court held yes, such retirement is exempt.

Facts:
The husband’s KTRS account was valued at $81,410.27 and the wife’s Fidelity SEP-IRA was valued at $1895.97. The husband argued that his account was exempt pursuant to KRS 161.700. The wife argued that only the portion of his account up to the amount of her IRA was exempt from division as a marital asset, pursuant to KRS 403.190(4). The trial court held that KRS 161.700 controlled and found that the husband’s entire account was exempt. The wife appealed.

Analysis:
This is a case of first impression for Kentucky. There is a conflict between the two statutes. KRS161.700 (2) states that KTRS benefits are exempt from division as marital property in divorce proceedings. Yet, KRS 403.190(4) states that the level of exception provided to the spouse with the greater retirement benefits shall not exceed the amount of exemption provided to the other spouse. Since KRS161.700 (2) is more specific, it controls. Furthermore, two amendments were made to KRS161.700 after the amendment to KRS 403.190 (4), neither of which addressed the conflict herein. The amendments omitted any language permitting attachment for either court-ordered division of marital property or maintenance. The Court found this to be a clear indication of legislative intent. The Court declined to decide whether the result, the husband’s entire account being exempt, was equitable.
In the alternative, the Court held that the wife’s IRA did not qualify as retirement benefits under KRS 403.190(4), as it is not regulated by ERISA, not regulated by state or local government, and not a plan qualified under Section 401(a) of the IRC.
Affirmed.
Digest by Sarah Jost Nielsen, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Constructive Trust - KY Case Digest

Keeney v. Keeney, -- S.W.3d – (Ky. App. 2007), decided March 16, 2007, designated to be published, not yet final.

Issues and Holdings:
1) Whether the trial court erred in imposing a constructive trust. The Court held no, the trial court did not err.
2) Whether the trial court erred by finding that the wife was entitled to half the proceeds of the couple’s business inventory sold by the husband to his parents with the proceeds applied directly to an indebtedness. The Court held no, the trial court did not err.
Facts:
Barbara Keeney filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Milton Keeney. Barbara then amended her petition to name Milton’s parents as additional defendants, to establish her rights to 6.6629 acres near Nancy, Kentucky, titled in his parents’ names, and to ask the court to impose a trust upon the