Recent Posts

Journal Categories

  • Monday, March 27, 2017



    Wife believed Husband transferred marital property to his sons to deprive her of the marital estate. Wife filed an amended Petition in an attempt to join the sons and business to the dissolution action. The sons and the business moved to be dismissed. The trial court dismissed and state it was “final and appealable with no just cause for delay.” Wife filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate, which was denied.


    Later, Wife filed a motion to add the sons and business as indispensable parties. The trial court, over objections, added them as parties, but ultimately granted summary judgment. Wife appealed the Order granting summary judgement.


    The Court of Appeals dismisses the appeal holding that “because the sons were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a final and appealable order that was never appealed, the trial court was...

  • Thursday, March 23, 2017


    The trial court awarded maintenance based on its finding that Wife’s reasonable living expenses totaled $5,800 monthly, including $1,440 of the children’s living expenses. Accordingly, Husband was ordered to pay maintenance. Husband was also ordered to pay an additional $15,000 for wife’s attorney fees based on an imbalance in financial resources.


    Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by including the children’s expenses in its calculation of wife’s reasonable living expenses and in failing to make findings justifying its award of nine years of maintenance, but upheld the trial court’s ruling on attorney fees. The Supreme Court granted discretionary review.


    Wife argues the trial court properly considered the children’s expenses in calculating her maintenance award. The Supreme Court agrees...

  • Tuesday, March 21, 2017


    Appellant appealed an Interpersonal Protective Order (“IPO”) arguing the trial’s courts finding that stalking occurred was not supported by the evidence. Although the IPO had expired rendering the appeal moot, the Court of Appeals held that as IPOs are almost identical to DVOs the case meets the “collateral consequences” exception to mootness set out in Caudill v. Caudill, 318 S.W.3d 112 (Ky. App. 2010). The Court then turns to Appellant’s claim finding it lacks merit as the trial court properly entered an IPO because Appellant’s action’s met the KRS 508.130 definition of stalking and “satisfied the elements of second degree stalking, as set forth in KRS 508.150(1).”

    Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell



  • Tuesday, March 7, 2017




    Wife and Husband’s divorce was finalized in 2002 at which time Wife was awarded the marital home and property valued at $856,000. At that time, Husband was ordered to return the landscape around the home to an appropriate residential landscape, as he had business equipment on the property. There is no dispute that Husband removed his business equipment.


    In 2015, Wife discovered “waste material” on the marital home property that “had caused remediation of the land” causing her to lose $250,000 in the sale of the 3.5 million dollar home. Wife filed a motion with the trial court asking Husband to compensate her for the diminution in value. The trial court denied Wife’s motion finding as a matter of law and fact that the 2002 Order...

  • Tuesday, March 7, 2017



    Grandparents had frequent contact with grandson, acting as his primary caregiver until Mother slowly cut off their time with grandson completely. Grandparents filed a Petition for Grandparent Visitation and the trial court awarded them grandparent’s visitation rights.


    Mother appealed first arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Grandparents visitation. The Court of Appeals affirms the trial court holding that the trial court correctly considered the evidence under Walker finding visitation was in the child’s best interest. There is no requirement for trial courts to write a “detailed analysis for each factor so long as it is clear from its discussion that it properly considered those factors in arriving at its ultimate conclusion.”


    Next Mother argues the “trial court erred in intermingling the roles of the...

This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be considered to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. Persons accessing this site are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.
© Diana L. Skaggs + Partners, PLLC · 623 W. Main Street · Louisville, KY · 40202 · Tel: (502) 562-0050 · Fax: (502) 582-3523