Recent Posts

Journal Categories

  • Saturday, February 24, 2018



    Husband and Wife entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement in North Carolina. Wife had an attorney. Husband did not have an attorney, but participated in the five drafts of the document. Both parties moved to Kentucky after Husband’s retirement from the military. Wife filed a motion to ratify the Separation Agreement. Husband requested the family court set aside the Separation Agreement as unconscionable and made various motions to modify. The family court ratified the Separation Agreement and denied Husband’s motion to set it aside or modify it with exception of custody and the parties’ parenting time schedule. Husband appealed on multiple grounds.


    The Court of Appeals first addresses Husband’s argument that the family court erred by failing to find that “he entered into the Separation Agreement as a result of duress, fraud, and undue influence.” The Court of...

  • Saturday, February 24, 2018



    Paternal grandfather and his girlfriend were adjudged de facto custodians of minor child and were awarded sole permanent custody. Maternal grandmother was awarded grandparent visitation pursuant to KRS 405.021.


    Mother and maternal grandmother appealed arguing that the family court erred by designating paternal grandfather and girlfriend as de facto custodians of the minor child as only an individual or a married couple can be named pursuant to KRS 403.270(1). The Court of Appeals agrees holding that an unmarried couple does not qualify as a single unit under KRS 403.270. Thus, the action is remanded to the family court.


    Judge Lambert dissents arguing “the issue of permanent custody has been fully litigated and established.” She would affirm the family court...

  • Saturday, February 24, 2018



    Father took custody of his two minor children after the death of mother. Maternal grandparents filed a Petition for grandparent visitation which was granted by the trial court.


    The Court of Appeals first addresses a jurisdictional issue. Grandparents filed a Petition for grandparent visitation, withdrew without serving Father, and then subsequently filed a motion under the same case number to re-open without alleging grounds under CR 60.02. The case was reopened and Father replied. The Court of Appeals held that “the trial court did not act outside of its general subject-matter jurisdiction, but only outside of its particular-case jurisdiction. Therefore, Father “effectively consented to the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the particular case, and waived any right to raise the issue on appeal.”


    Father primarily...

  • Friday, February 16, 2018



    The trial court set child support based on Mother’s annual income of $46,000, imputing the same income to Father. Father appealed arguing that the trial court erred by “denying him an adequate hearing before it determined whether he was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed” and “imputing income to him in an amount based solely upon [Mother’s] annual earnings.”


    The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings agreeing with Father holding that the court incorrectly based Father’s potential income solely upon Mother’s annual income in violation of KRS 403.212(2)(d).

     Digested by ...

  • Thursday, February 15, 2018


    Husband and Wife obtained divorce and entered into an agreement which provided that Wife would execute a special warranty deed conveying the marital home to Husband and required him to execute a will devising the home and its contents to Wife at his death. Husband died leaving the home to his sons. Wife filed an action seeking specific performance of the MSA and a conveyance to her of the marital home and its contents. The trial court found that the parties “had agreed and orally modified the MSA with respect to marital residence” denying Wife’s claim.

     The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court holding that an “oral modification to an MSA will be enforced if the terms of the agreement can be reasonably established and the agreement is fair and equitable under the circumstances.” Wife argued that the parties settled with finality and...

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