<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Uncategorized Archives - Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/tag/uncategorized/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/tag/uncategorized/</link>
	<description>When it's time to talk.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:15:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.2</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Unvested restricted stock units declared nonmarital property &#8211; Ky Court of Appeals Published Opinion last week</title>
		<link>https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2018/06/08/unvested-restricted-stock-units-declared-nonmarital-property-ky-court-of-appeals-published-opinion-last-week/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 20:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Law - Kentucky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elizabeth M. Howell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marital Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonmarital Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://test-wordpress.jborseth.net/blog/unvested-restricted-stock-units-declared-nonmarital-property-ky-court-of-appeals-published-opinion-last-week/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>NORMANDIN V. NORMANDIN Husband and Wife divorced and the family court entered an order on child support, maintenance, and property division. Wife appealed challenging the family court’s conclusions of law on a number of issues. Wife first argued that the trial court erred in failing to make adequate findings and by considering the nonmarital inheritance [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2018/06/08/unvested-restricted-stock-units-declared-nonmarital-property-ky-court-of-appeals-published-opinion-last-week/">Unvested restricted stock units declared nonmarital property &#8211; Ky Court of Appeals Published Opinion last week</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2016-CA-000392.pdf">NORMANDIN V. NORMANDIN</a></p>
<p>Husband and Wife divorced and the family court entered an order on child support, maintenance, and property division. Wife appealed challenging the family court’s conclusions of law on a number of issues.</p>
<p>Wife first argued that the trial court erred in failing to make adequate findings and by considering the nonmarital inheritance she received in setting maintenance. The Court of Appeals affirms the family court holding that “It is well within the court’s discretion to consider nonmarital assets when calculating the amount and duration of maintenance.” The family court properly considered Wife’s financial resources, education level, the marital standard of living, along with other factors.</p>
<p>Wife next argues that the trial court erred in finding Husband’s unvested RSUs were nonmarital property. The Court of Appeal disagrees affirming the family court holding that the trial court properly concluded the RSUs were nonmarital property belonging to Husband and should be excluded from calculating Husband’s income in calculating maintenance and child support.</p>
<p>Wife makes a number of additional arguments on property division, child support, and attorney fees. The Court of Appeals upholds the trial court on all issues.</p>
<p>Digested by <a href="http://louisvilledivorce.com/dedicated-professionals">Elizabeth M. Howell</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2018/06/08/unvested-restricted-stock-units-declared-nonmarital-property-ky-court-of-appeals-published-opinion-last-week/">Unvested restricted stock units declared nonmarital property &#8211; Ky Court of Appeals Published Opinion last week</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ky attorney fee lien statute (KRS 376.460) is not applicable in dissolution actions</title>
		<link>https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/10/01/ky-attorney-fee-lien-statute-krs-376-460-is-not-applicable-in-dissolution-actions/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:11:23 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://test-wordpress.jborseth.net/blog/ky-attorney-fee-lien-statute-krs-376-460-is-not-applicable-in-dissolution-actions/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Ruby v. Scherzer, attorney fee lien statute (KRS 376.460) is not applicable in dissolution actions. Digest to follow. Ruby v. Scherzer, attorney fee lien statute (KRS 376.460) is not applicable in dissolution actions. Digest to follow.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/10/01/ky-attorney-fee-lien-statute-krs-376-460-is-not-applicable-in-dissolution-actions/">Ky attorney fee lien statute (KRS 376.460) is not applicable in dissolution actions</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-001724.pdf%20" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ruby<br />
v. Scherzer</a>, attorney fee lien statute (KRS 376.460) is not applicable in dissolution<br />
actions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Digest to follow. <br /></span></p>
<p><span id="more-1405"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-001724.pdf%20" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ruby<br />
v. Scherzer</a>, attorney fee lien statute (KRS 376.460) is not applicable in dissolution<br />
actions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Digest to follow. <br /></span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/10/01/ky-attorney-fee-lien-statute-krs-376-460-is-not-applicable-in-dissolution-actions/">Ky attorney fee lien statute (KRS 376.460) is not applicable in dissolution actions</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ky trial court reversed for including stock options in income for support  while dividing options as assets. Double dipping. Also reversed for failing to include gifts from her parents in wife’s income for child support purposes. And, reversed for fail</title>
		<link>https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/09/30/ky-trial-court-reversed-for-including-stock-options-in-income-for-support-while-dividing-options-as-assets-double-dipping-also-reversed-for-failing-to-include-gifts-from-her-parents-in-wife/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2013 20:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://test-wordpress.jborseth.net/blog/ky-trial-court-reversed-for-including-stock-options-in-income-for-support-while-dividing-options-as-assets-double-dipping-also-reversed-for-failing-to-include-gifts-from-her-parents-in-wife/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Penner v. Penner. Ky trial court reversed for including stock options in income for support &#0160;while dividing options as assets. Double dipping. Penner v. Penner. Ky trial court reversed for including stock options in income for support &#160;while dividing options as assets. Double dipping. Also reversed for failing to include gifts from her parents in [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/09/30/ky-trial-court-reversed-for-including-stock-options-in-income-for-support-while-dividing-options-as-assets-double-dipping-also-reversed-for-failing-to-include-gifts-from-her-parents-in-wife/">Ky trial court reversed for including stock options in income for support  while dividing options as assets. Double dipping. Also reversed for failing to include gifts from her parents in wife’s income for child support purposes. And, reversed for fail</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2011-CA-002238.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Penner v. Penner</a>. Ky trial court reversed for including stock options in income for support<br />
&#0160;while dividing options as assets. Double dipping.<br />
<span id="more-1406"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2011-CA-002238.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Penner v. Penner</a>. Ky trial court reversed for including stock options in income for support &nbsp;while dividing options as assets. Double dipping. Also reversed for failing to include gifts from her parents in wife’s income for child support purposes. And, reversed for failing to give husband credit for payment of mortgage deficiency caused by wife’s failure to make mortgage payments as ordered. Affirmed on all other grounds raised.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">Digest to follow. </span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/09/30/ky-trial-court-reversed-for-including-stock-options-in-income-for-support-while-dividing-options-as-assets-double-dipping-also-reversed-for-failing-to-include-gifts-from-her-parents-in-wife/">Ky trial court reversed for including stock options in income for support  while dividing options as assets. Double dipping. Also reversed for failing to include gifts from her parents in wife’s income for child support purposes. And, reversed for fail</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>One published family law opinion from Ky Court of Appeals September 13, 2013</title>
		<link>https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/09/16/one-published-family-law-opinion-from-ky-court-of-appeals-september-13-2013/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:08:09 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://test-wordpress.jborseth.net/blog/one-published-family-law-opinion-from-ky-court-of-appeals-september-13-2013/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>M.L.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services. &#0160; Termination of parental rights reversed where findings did not cite any evidence supporting what reunification efforts were made nor how termination was in children’s best interest and appeared to rely on incarceration alone. M.L.C. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services. &#0160; Termination of parental rights [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/09/16/one-published-family-law-opinion-from-ky-court-of-appeals-september-13-2013/">One published family law opinion from Ky Court of Appeals September 13, 2013</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-002021.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">M.L.C.<br />
v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services.</a> <a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-002021.pdf"></a>&#0160;<br />
Termination of parental rights reversed where findings did not cite any<br />
evidence supporting what reunification efforts were made nor how termination<br />
was in children’s best interest and appeared to rely on incarceration alone. </span></p>
<p><span id="more-1407"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-002021.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">M.L.C.<br />
v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services.</a> <a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-002021.pdf"></a>&#0160;<br />
Termination of parental rights reversed where findings did not cite any<br />
evidence supporting what reunification efforts were made nor how termination<br />
was in children’s best interest and appeared to rely on incarceration alone. </span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/09/16/one-published-family-law-opinion-from-ky-court-of-appeals-september-13-2013/">One published family law opinion from Ky Court of Appeals September 13, 2013</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court may take into account parents’ timesharing in deciding the amount of child support to be paid, but it is not mandatory &#8211; from Ky Supreme Court yesterday</title>
		<link>https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/08/30/court-may-take-into-account-parents-timesharing-in-deciding-the-amount-of-child-support-to-be-paid-but-it-is-not-mandatory-from-ky-supreme-court-yesterday/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:01:24 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://test-wordpress.jborseth.net/blog/court-may-take-into-account-parents-timesharing-in-deciding-the-amount-of-child-support-to-be-paid-but-it-is-not-mandatory-from-ky-supreme-court-yesterday/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>McFella v. McFella&#0160; -&#0160; Court may take into account parents’ timesharing in deciding the amount of child support to be paid, but it is not mandatory. McFella v. McFella&#0160; -&#0160; Court may take into account parents’ timesharing in deciding the amount of child support to be paid, but it is not mandatory. http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2012-SC-000737-DGE.pdf &#8211; Where [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/08/30/court-may-take-into-account-parents-timesharing-in-deciding-the-amount-of-child-support-to-be-paid-but-it-is-not-mandatory-from-ky-supreme-court-yesterday/">Court may take into account parents’ timesharing in deciding the amount of child support to be paid, but it is not mandatory &#8211; from Ky Supreme Court yesterday</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2011-SC-000610-DG.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">McFella<br />
v. McFella</a>&#0160; -&#0160;<br />
Court may take into account parents’ timesharing in deciding the amount of<br />
child support to be paid, but it is not mandatory. </span></p>
<p><span id="more-1408"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2011-SC-000610-DG.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">McFella<br />
v. McFella</a>&#0160; -&#0160;<br />
Court may take into account parents’ timesharing in deciding the amount of<br />
child support to be paid, but it is not mandatory. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2012-SC-000737-DGE.pdf">http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2012-SC-000737-DGE.pdf</a></span> &#8211;<br />
Where appeal of DVO not timely filed trial court’s denial of CR60.02 motion<br />
affirmed. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;">Digests of these two opinions from Ky Supreme Court to follow.<br /></span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/08/30/court-may-take-into-account-parents-timesharing-in-deciding-the-amount-of-child-support-to-be-paid-but-it-is-not-mandatory-from-ky-supreme-court-yesterday/">Court may take into account parents’ timesharing in deciding the amount of child support to be paid, but it is not mandatory &#8211; from Ky Supreme Court yesterday</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Published Child Support Modification Case from Ky Court of Appeals Today</title>
		<link>https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/08/16/published-child-support-modification-case-from-ky-court-of-appeals-today/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:03:18 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://test-wordpress.jborseth.net/blog/published-child-support-modification-case-from-ky-court-of-appeals-today/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Ciampa v. Ciampa&#0160; Trial Court’s findings supported reduction of child support by only 3% following emancipation of older child where income substantially exceeded guidelines. Trial court included private high school tuition as part of child’s needs. Digest to follow. Ciampa v. Ciampa&#0160; Trial Court’s findings supported reduction of child support by only 3% following emancipation [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/08/16/published-child-support-modification-case-from-ky-court-of-appeals-today/">Published Child Support Modification Case from Ky Court of Appeals Today</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="MsoNormal">
<p class="MsoNormal">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2013-CA-000121.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ciampa<br />
v. Ciampa</a>&#0160; Trial Court’s findings supported reduction of child support by only 3% following<br />
emancipation of older child where income substantially exceeded guidelines.<br />
Trial court included private high school tuition as part of child’s needs. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Digest to follow. <br /></span></p>
</p>
<p><span id="more-1409"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<p class="MsoNormal">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2013-CA-000121.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ciampa<br />
v. Ciampa</a>&#0160; Trial Court’s findings supported reduction of child support by only 3% following<br />
emancipation of older child where income substantially exceeded guidelines.<br />
Trial court included private high school tuition as part of child’s needs. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Digest to follow. <br /></span></p></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/08/16/published-child-support-modification-case-from-ky-court-of-appeals-today/">Published Child Support Modification Case from Ky Court of Appeals Today</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>One Published Family Law Opinion Last Friday from Ky Court of Appeals</title>
		<link>https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/08/12/one-published-family-law-opinion-last-friday-from-ky-court-of-appeals/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:07:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://test-wordpress.jborseth.net/blog/one-published-family-law-opinion-last-friday-from-ky-court-of-appeals/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Bjelland v. Bjelland,&#0160; where mother did not request court to make additional findings, order requiring her to share in cost of non-mandatory field trip cost was affirmed. Digest to follow. Bjelland v. Bjelland,&#0160; where mother did not request court to make additional findings, order requiring her to share in cost of non-mandatory field trip cost [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/08/12/one-published-family-law-opinion-last-friday-from-ky-court-of-appeals/">One Published Family Law Opinion Last Friday from Ky Court of Appeals</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-000114.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bjelland<br />
v. Bjelland</a>,&#0160;<br />
where mother did not request court to make additional findings, order requiring<br />
her to share in cost of non-mandatory field trip cost was affirmed. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;">Digest to follow. <br /></span></p>
<p><span id="more-1410"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-000114.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bjelland<br />
v. Bjelland</a>,&#0160;<br />
where mother did not request court to make additional findings, order requiring<br />
her to share in cost of non-mandatory field trip cost was affirmed. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;">Digest to follow. <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;">&#0160;</span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/08/12/one-published-family-law-opinion-last-friday-from-ky-court-of-appeals/">One Published Family Law Opinion Last Friday from Ky Court of Appeals</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Published Family Law Opinions from Ky Court of Appeals</title>
		<link>https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/08/06/published-family-law-opinions-from-ky-court-of-appeals/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 19:27:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://test-wordpress.jborseth.net/blog/published-family-law-opinions-from-ky-court-of-appeals/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>From July 26, 2013: Ensor v. Ensor. The Opinion of April 12, 2013 was withdrawn and this opinion substitued. This is the case concerning the Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT). Muir v. Muir. Restoration of nonmarital property, division of mailital property in just proportions, attorney fees. There were no published family law opinions released on [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/08/06/published-family-law-opinions-from-ky-court-of-appeals/">Published Family Law Opinions from Ky Court of Appeals</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From July 26, 2013: <a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2010-CA-001660.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ensor v. Ensor</a>. The Opinion of April 12, 2013 was withdrawn and this opinion substitued. This is the case concerning the Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT). </p>
<p><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-000853.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Muir v. Muir</a>. Restoration of nonmarital property, division of mailital property in just proportions, attorney fees. </p>
<p>There were no published family law opinions released on August 2, 2013. Digests to follow. Eventually. </p>
<p><span id="more-1412"></span></p>
<p>From July 26, 2013: <a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2010-CA-001660.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ensor v. Ensor</a>. The Opinion of April 12, 2013 was withdrawn and this opinion substitued. This is the case concerning the Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT). </p>
<p><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-000853.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Muir v. Muir</a>. Restoration of nonmarital property, division of mailital property in just proportions, attorney fees. </p>
<p>There were no published family law opinions released on August 2, 2013. Digests to follow. Eventually. </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/08/06/published-family-law-opinions-from-ky-court-of-appeals/">Published Family Law Opinions from Ky Court of Appeals</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Three Published Family Law Opinions from Ky Court of Appeals Today</title>
		<link>https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/07/05/three-published-family-law-opinions-from-ky-court-of-appeals-today-3/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 16:48:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://test-wordpress.jborseth.net/blog/three-published-family-law-opinions-from-ky-court-of-appeals-today-3/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Triplett v. Triplett, coverture fraction of pension upheld where appellant failed to preserve subtraction or bright line arguments in trial court. Triplett v. Triplett, coverture fraction of pension upheld where appellant failed to preserve subtraction or bright line arguments in trial court. Ipock v. Ipock, et al, CR60 may be used to disestablish paternity with [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/07/05/three-published-family-law-opinions-from-ky-court-of-appeals-today-3/">Three Published Family Law Opinions from Ky Court of Appeals Today</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><a href="//opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2011-CA-002076.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Triplett<br />
v. Triplett</a>, coverture fraction of pension upheld where appellant failed to<br />
preserve subtraction or bright line arguments in trial court.<a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2011-CA-002076.pdf"></a></span></p>
<p><span id="more-1413"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><a href="//opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2011-CA-002076.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Triplett<br />
v. Triplett</a>, coverture fraction of pension upheld where appellant failed to<br />
preserve subtraction or bright line arguments in trial court.<a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2011-CA-002076.pdf"></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-001271.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ipock<br />
v. Ipock</a>, et al, CR60 may be used to disestablish paternity with the results of<br />
a completed DNA test in which case the results of the test shall be the<br />
predominant factor in the trial court’s decision. Order allowing CHFS and GAL to<br />
intervene in divorce action affirmed. </span>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><a href="//opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-001786.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Seay<br />
v. Seay</a>, Emancipation of one child&#0160; triggers review of child support<br />
without regard as to whether the new amount is 15% greater or lower.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;">Digests to follow. Eventually. Running behind. <br /></span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/07/05/three-published-family-law-opinions-from-ky-court-of-appeals-today-3/">Three Published Family Law Opinions from Ky Court of Appeals Today</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defacto Custodian Published Opinion from Ky Court of Appeals Today</title>
		<link>https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/06/14/defacto-custodian-published-opinion-from-ky-court-of-appeals-today/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:41:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://test-wordpress.jborseth.net/blog/defacto-custodian-published-opinion-from-ky-court-of-appeals-today/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>&#0160; Hicks v. Halsey, digest to follow. &#0160; &#0160; Hicks v. Halsey, digest to follow. &#0160;</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/06/14/defacto-custodian-published-opinion-from-ky-court-of-appeals-today/">Defacto Custodian Published Opinion from Ky Court of Appeals Today</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#0160;</p>
</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><a href="//opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-001154.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hicks<br />
v. Halsey</a>,<a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-001154.pdf"></a><br />
digest to follow.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;">&#0160;</span></p>
</p>
<p><span id="more-1375"></span></p>
<p>&#0160;</p>
</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;"><a href="//opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-001154.pdf" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hicks<br />
v. Halsey</a>,<a href="http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2012-CA-001154.pdf"></a><br />
digest to follow.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: &quot;HelveticaNeue LT 67 MdCn&quot;;">&#0160;</span></p></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com/2013/06/14/defacto-custodian-published-opinion-from-ky-court-of-appeals-today/">Defacto Custodian Published Opinion from Ky Court of Appeals Today</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.louisvilledivorce.com">Goldberg Simpson - Family Law Group</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
