GRASCH V. GRASCH At the time of dissolution, Husband had an active law practice in which he had executed contingent-fee contracts with some clients. The trial court treated the contingent-fee contracts as a component of Husband’s income when received and not as property. The Court of Appeals agreed. The Supreme Court accepted discretionary review.Read More

PRIEST V. PRIEST The Court of Appeals previously ruled in this case (Priest v. Priest, No. 2014-CA-000148-MR) holding Wife’s share of Husband’s military retirement “should be calculated based upon the DFSA, Section IV(c) as outlined in Poe v. Poe. 711 S.W.2d 849, 850 (Ky. App. 1986). The family court divided the military retirement benefit utilizing...Read More

LEWIS V. FULKERSON Both Husband and Wife appealed Court Order entered after a trial on all issues. Wife argued that the family court erred in finding that all of the proceeds from the sale of Husband’s businesses were his nonmarital property. Husband argued the family court erred in determining the character of Wife’s Trust corpus...Read More

HARVEY V. ROBINSON 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...Read More

Financial disclosure forms are required to be filed in divorce and separation cases in Louisville and across the state of Kentucky pursuant to family court rules. It is common that your husband or wife may file the form incorrectly as many couples do not have the correct understanding of what items should be disclosed. Kentucky...Read More

ALBERT W. BARBER, III V. ELIZABETH D. BRADLEY Husband appealed to the Court of Appeals arguing the trial court erred by finding the equity in the parties’ residence was marital property and ordering the division of household goods and furnishings by lot. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court granted discretionary...Read More

GRASCH v. GRASCH Husband, an attorney, and Wife, who managed his law firm, divorced after a thirty year marriage. After four years of litigation, the parties appealed and cross appealed numerous issues for the Appellate Court to review. Contingency Fees The first issue the Appellate Court addresses is whether contingency fee cases are marital property...Read More

MCVICKER V. MCVICKER At trial, husband made several nonmarital claims, and argued for a 70/30 split of marital property in his favor, since he cared for the parties adult disabled child. The Family Court found that Husband had nonmarital claims in the home and in a Morgan Stanley account. It also split the parties’ marital...Read More

Farrar v. FarrarRead More

Lambe v. Weber The Appellate Court first addresses maintenance, holding that income should not be imputed to a spouse when her underemployment is not voluntary. In this case, the child’s medical needs prevented the mother from working.Read More