Even though agreement says maintenance not modifiable, motion remanded for additional cohabitation findings – published opinion from Ky Court of Appeals

Businessman looking at the time on his wrist watch in car. Business concept.

Lockhart v. Lockhart

The parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement in which Former Husband agreed to pay maintenance to Former Wife for a period of years or until Former Wife remarried. Additionally, the Agreement precluded the modification of maintenance. Former Husband filed a motion to terminate his maintenance obligation due to a decrease of his income. In a second motion, Former Husband argued the Agreement should be set aside based on Former Wife’s cohabitation with her boyfriend.

The Trial Court denied Former Husband’s motions, reasoning that the Agreement expressly provided that maintenance was not subject to modification and that, under the terms of the Agreement, cohabitation was not grounds for termination of maintenance.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in finding that Former Wife’s cohabitation was not grounds to terminate maintenance under the terms of the Agreement, even though the Agreement expressly precluded modification for subsequent unconscionability. Additionally, the Court noted that in Combs v. Combs, 787 S.W.2d 260 (Ky. 1990), the Supreme Court of Kentucky held that, although KRS 403.250(2) provides for the termination of maintenance only upon the remarriage of the receiving party, the receiving spouse’s cohabitation can render continued maintenance unconscionable if it constitutes a new financial resource. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for additional findings of fact surrounding Former Wife’s cohabitation.   

Digested by: Emily T. Cecconi

Recent Posts

Flag of Kentucky
General Division of District Court Has Jurisdiction to Hear IPO Cases Involving Minors; GAL Must Be Appointed to Represent Minors in IPO Cases – Published Opinion from Supreme Court of Ky.
September 14, 2021
Hearsay Statements Detailing Abuse, Behavior, and Feelings to a Treating Therapist that Are Essential for Diagnosis and Treatment Are Properly Admissible; Hearsay Statements Regarding the Identity of the Perpetrator May Be Admissible – Published Opinion from Supreme Court of Ky.
September 14, 2021
Signature
Family Court Made Sufficient Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Incorporating Oral Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Reference into Written Order – Published Opinion from Supreme Court of Ky.
September 14, 2021