Williams v. Bittel

PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING
HARRIS, SENIOR JUDGE, PRESIDING; ACREE AND CLAYTON CONCUR
COUNTY: DAVIESS

Child’s Aunt and Uncle (“the Williamses”) appealed from TC’s order denying their petition to modify custody of Child and cross-appealed from TC’s order denying their motion to reconsider the petition. Fiance of Child’s deceased mother (“Bittel”) appealed from TC’s order denying his petition to modify custody and to stay a foreign judgment.

These appeals presented CA with three issues of first impression:

(1) Whether an out-of-state adoption preempts KY custody orders;

(2) Whether a de facto custodian who is granted joint custody rights must continuously meet the de facto custodial requirements in order to maintain standing in custody proceedings; and

(3) Whether TC could properly condition its deference to the GA courts on Child’s custody and visitation by providing that its prior orders regarding Bittel’s joint custodianship and visitation with Child are not affected. 

FACTS:

Child’s biological father never had contact with her.  Mother began living with Bittel while pregnant with child, and after Child was born, they functioned as a family unit.  When Child was 18 mos., Mother died. 

The Williamses assumed the responsibilities of caring for Child, but Bittel remained extremely involved in her life and even moved in with the Williamses.  The Williamses later asked Bittel to leave their home.

When Child was 2, Bittel petitioned for custody of Child.  First, TC found that the Williamses and Bittel were de facto custodians of Child.  Then, both parties were granted joint custody. The Williamses were designated primary residential custodians with liberal visitation given to Bittel. Neither the Williamses nor Bittel appealed. 

When Child was 8, the Williamses notified Bittel that they intended to move to Georgia. Bittel ultimately moved for specific visitation.  The Williamses then filed a motion to modify custody.  The motion was denied based upon the Williamses’ failure to support their motion with an affidavit, as required by KRS 403.350.  TC granted Bittel’s motion for specific visitation and carefully outlined a visitation schedule. TC denied the Williamses motion to reconsider their petition for custody modification.  The Williamses appealed this ruling. 

During the pendency of the custody action in KY, the Williamses adopted Child in Georgia. Bittel attempted to intervene in the adoption, but GA law only allows blood relatives standing to intervene in adoption cases, and he failed.  The Williamses filed the GA adoption decree as a foreign judgment in KY. Bittel moved to stay the foreign judgment. TC upheld Bittel’s rights as joint custodian of Child, despite the adoption, but deferred to GA as the more convenient forum.  Bittel appealed and the Williamses cross-appealed this order.

I. Interstate Custody Dispute: Does the GA adoption divest KY of custody jurisdiction? No.

The Williamses argued that because KRS 403.802 specifically exempts adoptions from the UCCJEA’s concept of “exclusive, continuing jurisdiction,” jurisdiction of all custody proceedings in this action was relinquished to the GA courts because of the adoption.  CA noted that while the UCCJEA does not apply to adoptions, Bittel never claimed that KY should have jurisdiction over the adoption. CA held that exclusive, continuing jurisdiction of the custody matters remains in KY as long as Bittel resides in KY and maintains a significant relationship with Child, so that the GA adoption did not invalidate or alter TC’s custody orders.  CA noted that the Williamses “successfully circumvented the spirit of the law. Their actions create the precise problems that the UCCJEA and the PKPA attempted to avoid; viz., interstate custody disputes and competition. This loophole cannot be closed by our Court, only by legislative action.”

II. De Facto Custodianship: Must Bittel continuously meet the de facto custodian requirements in order to maintain standing in custody proceedings? No.

The Williamses argued that Bittel never met the standard for de facto custodians.  CA held that while Bittel’s de facto custodian status was the basis for the TC’s award of joint custody, his standing to participate in the custody proceedings was derived from his joint custodian status. He need not maintain the de facto custodian status in order to maintain standing as a joint custodian as such would place an unfair burden upon non-residential joint custodian.

III. The Inconvenient Forum Issue: Could TC properly condition its deference to GA courts on custody and visitation issues by providing that its prior orders regarding Bittel’s joint custodianship and visitation are not affected? “Yes.”

CA concluded that TC’s imposition of this condition was allowed by statute, but noted that GA courts may not fully enforce the “previous orders” of the TC. 

Digested by Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates 

No Kentucky Supreme Court family law published opinions were among those released today. Discretionary review was granted in one family law case, Howard v. Howard. The unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals is here. The case involves whether father, who quit job for claimed medical reasons, was underemployed for child support purposes and whether car debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy.  

The Court of Appeals issued one to be published family law case, Williams v. Bittel. Digest to follow.

Atkisson v. Atkisson and Atkisson v. Atkisson (consolidated appeals, separate opinions) ___S.W.3d____ (Ky App. 2009) and ___S.W.3d____(Ky App. 2009)

Husband appealed the trial court’s division of marital property, award of temporary maintenance, award of attorney fees, and denial of relief to quash garnishment writs and judgment lien.

Marital residence:     Court awarded husband the residence, but awarded all the equity in the residence to the wife as her non-marital property.  Husband argued that the court should have apportioned the equity as set out in Brandenburg.  COA found that while there was marital equity in the residence, even if the husband was credited for that amount, there was insufficient equity to fully reimburse the wife for her non-marital contribution.  Therefore, there was no marital equity to divide under Brandenburg.

Timeshare:    The court ordered that the timeshare be sold.  Wife was to receive $1,522.88 of the proceeds as her non-marital property.  The remaining proceeds were to be divided equally.  Husband argues that the court erred in not taking into consideration the debt associated with the timeshare, which the court assigned to husband.  COA found that debt is part of the current mortgage on the marital residence.  The court deducted the full amount of both mortgages from the value of the residence to determine the equity in the property.  As a result, the court properly considered the debt. 

Temporary maintenance:      Court ordered husband to pay wife temporary maintenance of $2500 per month.  The order included a provision for health insurance and car insurance.  Husband argued that the award was excessive and that wife intentionally remained unemployed.  COA found the trial court had imputed wife with income in calculating temporary maintenance and found no basis to disturb the trial court’s judgment. 

Attorney fees:    Trial court awarded wife $10,000 in attorney fees.  Husband argued that wife not entitled to any fees due to the amount of assets wife received in the judgment.  COA found no abuse of discretion.  Wife only awarded half of the fees she asked for, husband retains a higher earning capacity, and husband received the residence and most of the income producing property. 

Writs of garnishment and judgment lien:  After the trial court ruled on the parties CR 59.05 motions, wife filed non-wage garnishment against three of husband’s accounts and a judgment lien against his real property.  Husband moved to quash the writs and lien as premature, but trial court denied the motion.  COA found that the garnishment writs and judgment lien were not filed prematurely.  The court’s judgment stays in effect until modified, although enforcement is stayed under CR.62.01.  When compliance dates have passed by the time the court denies a CR 59.05 motion, the trial court should allow a reasonable amount of time for the obligor to comply with the original order.  Here, a reasonable amount of time was given. 

Wife’s garnishment of tax-deferred accounts resulted in 10% penalties for early withdrawal, plus taxes and fees.  COA found that the garnishment writs subjected husband to penalties that far outweighed his failure to comply with the court’s orders.  The penalties and taxes imposed on husband changed the overall allocation of marital assets.  COA remanded this issue to the trial court for a determination of the amount of penalties and taxes incurred and an allocation of this amount between the parties. 

    Digested by Sarah Jost Nielsen, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Temple v. Temple, ____S.W.3d____(Ky. App. 2009)

Karen is the adopted daughter of Cheryl and Phillip.  At the time of the adoption, Karen was classified as severely emotionally disturbed.  When the parties divorced, Karen remained with Cheryl.  In 2003, at seventeen years old, Karen had a child, N.T.  Karen and N.T. lived with Cheryl for the first twenty months of the child’s life and Karen relied heavily on Cheryl for the support and care of N.T.  Karen later moved into an apartment with N.T., but still relied heavily on Cheryl.  Karen was investigated for neglect on two occasions, but the allegations were not substantiated.  However, social workers testified that N.T. thrived better with Cheryl than with Karen.  In 2007 Karen gave Cheryl written permission to seek medical treatment for N.T. when necessary.  She also agreed that N.T. should live with Cheryl.  In November 2007 Phillip took N.T. for a visit and did not return him.  Cheryl petitioned the court to declare her a de facto custodian and grant her permanent custody, or in the alternative grant her joint custody.  Karen filed a written response, but did not seek custody for herself.  Instead, she argued that her father should have custody. 

    After a hearing, the DRC rendered findings and conclusions of law that were adopted by the trial court.  The court found that Cheryl was not a de facto custodian, since she failed to meet the one year time requirement.  However, the court found that Karen waived her superior right to custody and therefore granted Cheryl sole custody of N.T.  Phillip and Karen were granted shared visitation with N.T. one weekend a month.  Karen was ordered to pay Cheryl $60 per month child support.  Karen appealed. 

    COA affirmed, finding that Karen had waived her superior right to custody by failing to seek custody for herself.  Karen admitted that she did not want custody of her son.  She stated that if she were awarded custody she would give N.T. to her father.  Her testimony was equivalent to an express waiver.    

    Digested bySarah Jost Nielsen, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Money v. Money, ____S.W.3d____ (Ky. App. 2009)

Ex-Husband appealed from TC’s order assigning him additional marital debt subsequent to a marital settlement agreement (“MSA”), arguing that MSA was ambiguous and that TC erred by assigning him additional debt, which he alleged was unknown at the time of MSA. On cross-appeal, Ex-Wife argued that MSA was unconscionable.

FACTS:

After parties attended mediation with counsel, MSA was entered and incorporated into the decree of dissolution.  MSA provided that Ex-Wife would receive several investment accounts worth over $100K but would assume indebtedness on real estate and balances owed on two credit cards; Ex-Husband was to pay “all other indebtedness.”  It was later determined that there existed a margin loan account with a negative cash balance of $58,469.52, and this

debt was not reflected in MSA. This margin loan account was placed in Ex-Wife’s name as she received the asset securing the debt.  Ex-Wife filed three motions: (1) to transfer the margin

loan account to Gary’s name; (2) to find MSA unconscionable; and (3) to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. TC granted the motion to transfer the margin loan account. It denied the other two motions, specifically finding the motion to alter, amend or vacate untimely.

ANALYSIS:

Ex-Husband argued that MSA is ambiguous regarding the assignment of the margin loan account and must be interpreted against Ex-Wife because her counsel drafted it.

CA found provision that Ex-Husband was to pay “all other indebtedness” unambiguous and that Ex-Husband must pay it per terms of MSA.

Ex-Husband next contended that, per CR 59.02 and 59.05, Ex-Wife’s motion to assign the margin loan account to him was untimely because it occurred more than 10 days after the decree of dissolution was entered. CA disagreed, finding that motion was filed to request enforcement of the terms of the agreement as written and therefore there was no time limit on TC’s jurisdiction to do so. On cross-appeal, Ex-Wife argued that MSA was unconscionable because the proportion of the property division is manifestly unfair.  While noting that

An MSA initially approved by TC may be later modified if the party challenging MSA can demonstrate that it has become unconscionable because of changed circumstances, CA found that Ex-Wife did not allege a change of circumstances that rendered the agreement unconscionable and that a mere discrepancy in the amounts received by each party under a settlement agreement is not enough to render the agreement unconscionable. TC affirmed.

Digested by Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, __ S.W.3d __ (Ky. App. 2009)

 In divorce proceedings, the parties agreed on all issues, except for the division of husband’s military retirement.  Husband served in the military for approximately 4 years prior to the parties’ approximate 14 year marriage.  A hearing was held before a Domestic Relations Commissioner on the division of retirement benefits; however, there is no proof in the record that husband actually received notice of it, waived his right to participate in it, waived his right to have the hearing recorded, or waived any other right or protection on account of his military service.  Husband was deployed overseas during the proceedings and unrepresented by counsel.  The trial court adopted the DRC’s recommendations and awarded the wife 46% of husband’s retirement.  No further activity took place on this matter for over six years.  Eight months prior to husband’s retirement, the wife submitted a form to DFAS requesting 46% of husband’s disposable retired pay, with no distinction between marital and nonmarital portions.  This translated to wife receiving 82% of the marital portion of the benefit and husband receiving 18%.  It was not until his retirement that husband realized something was wrong.  He hired counsel and filed a motion for relief pursuant to CR 60.02(f).  Due to several procedural and substantive delays, husband’s motion was not heard for another year and a half.  The trial court denied his motion, except it did prohibit the wife from receiving any portion of the benefit attributable to husband’s post-divorce increases in rank and pay.  Husband appealed.

    There are three factors that must be met in order to obtain relief under CR 60.02(f):  1) none of the provisions of CR 60.02 (a)-(e) apply, 2) whether the moving party had a fair opportunity to present his claim at the trial on the merits, and 3) whether the granting of relief would be inequitable to other parties.  COA found all three factors weighed in husband’s favor: 1) No evidence supports the applicability of CR 60.02 (a)-(e), 2) Husband lacked the opportunity to be present at the hearing, and 3) Granting relief would not be inequitable to wife because the court had already held that she is only entitled to a share of the marital portion of the retirement benefit and husband did not seek more than that.

    The decree that originally awarded wife 46% of the retirement benefits contained no distinction between marital and nonmarital property.  Therefore, the decree conflicted with the court’s order denying CR 60.02 (f) relief, which states that wife is only entitled to a share of the marital portion of the benefits, and must be corrected.  The decree is also problematic since it did not explicitly first assign each spouse their nonmarital property before dividing the marital property.  As a result, it is unclear what the decree intended the outcome to be for the division of military retirement benefits.  The COA came up with four different possibilities, and narrowed it down to two using logic and the law: 1) the trial court intended to award wife 46% of the marital portion and 0% of the nonmarital portion, or 2) the trial court intended to award wife 46% of the benefit earned up to the point of divorce, but not what husband earned after the divorce.  The COA remanded for the trial court to determine how the decree should be corrected and/or clarified.  The COA referred the trial court to DFAS’s pamphlet entitled Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act, Dividing Military Retired Pay for guidance and recommended language.  When dealing with the division of military retired pay of an as-yet-ineligible service member, COA found the language in section IV.c. of the pamphlet regarding “hypothetical awards” to be consistent with Kentucky law. 

Next, COA noted that although husband chose to proceed unrepresented by counsel, he was still protected by the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940.  Thus, even when a service member does not ask for a stay in the proceedings, the Act requires that the trial court determine that the military service of the party would not have a material, adverse effect upon his rights before going forward.                    

Finally, COA did not find error in the fact that husband had not appealed the decree or that he waited years to file a CR 60.02 motion.  The decree on its face seemed to accomplish what husband wanted and he only realized the error shortly before he retired.  Husband promptly acted upon finding the error. 

Digested by Sarah Jost Nielsen, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Money v. Money. Investment account had margin debt but agreement allocated account to wife and provided that husband pay all debt except mortgage and two credit cards. In enforcing agreement court assigned margin debt to husband and was affirmed.

Snodgrass v. Snodgrass. Trial court's denial of  CR60.02(f) relief to restore nonmarital portion of military retirement pay was reversed.

Digests to follow. 

Crowder v. Rearden, __ S.W.3d __ (Ky. App. 2009)

    This is a companion appeal to Rearden v. Rearden, No. 2006-CA-002362-MR. 

Kimberly Joy Crowder, formerly Rearden, appealed from two orders, in which the trial court found her in contempt for failure to cooperate with the sale of the marital residence and for failure to pay her portion of the mortgage.  The trial court sentenced her to thirty days in jail.  She only served five days with work release and the remainder of the time was probated for two years.  Crowder also appealed the denial of her motion to alter, amend or vacate the contempt orders.  On appeal Crowder argued that 1) the court jailed her solely for nonpayment of the mortgage without determining her ability to pay, 2) her failure to comply with court orders was not the result of disrespect, but rather impossibility, and 3) the court did not require the husband to mitigate his damages. 

    COA affirmed, finding that the trial court was more than patient with Crowder and did not abuse its discretion in finding her in contempt for failing to obey multiple orders.  Crowder was found in contempt for failure to comply with a myriad of court orders, not just nonpayment of the mortgage.  The original order requiring her to pay the mortgage was based on a review of her finances as submitted in the mandatory case disclosure.  Crowder never challenged that order and allowed it to become final.  She also made three full mortgage payments on the residence.  Thus, the record shows she had the ability to pay.

The Court found Crowder’s mitigation of damages argument ironic at best.  She claims that the husband should have paid the mortgage to avoid having the house fall into foreclosure and damage his credit rating.  She made the argument while offering no proof that the husband could access enough funds to pay the full mortgage himself, the same thing she criticized the trial court for doing when holding her in contempt.  Crowder also failed to cite any case law that demonstrates a party is required to mitigate damages so a former spouse could avoid being held in contempt.

Digested by Sarah Jost Nielsen, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Here is the link to the pre-filed bill, BR251, relating to a global positioning monitoring system amendment to Kentucky’s domestic violence statute. It would also permit a petitioner to request that the respondent be prohibited from going to certain designated places requested by the petitioner. Apparently respondents would pay the cost unless unable, in which case approved vendors would bear cost responsibility. The courts would be authorized to conduct a risk assessment to determine whether monitoring would deter future violence.

Rearden v. Rearden, __ S.W.3d __ (Ky. App. 2009)

The parties divorced after approximately 6 months of marriage.  No children were born during the marriage.  Thus, the primary issues at trial and on appeal concerned the classification of assets as marital or non-marital property:

Down payment on marital residence:  The trial court classified the husband’s pre-wedding down payment of $3000.00 from his personal money market account on the marital residence as marital.  Following the Source of Funds Rule, the COA found that the down payment was an identifiable portion of the purchase price and it was made by the husband prior to the wedding.  However, the husband could not trace the $526.87 refund received from the down payment during the marriage as a result of calculations in the closing documents.  COA held that $526.87 refund was marital property and that the remaining $2473.13 was husband’s non-marital property.

The treadmill, dining room suite, and bed/mattress:  The trial court classified these items as marital property since the husband could not sufficiently prove they were purchased with his non-marital funds.  COA agreed. Husband purchased the items with his personal credit card, but paid some of the credit card transactions using funds from the parties’ joint account.  The fact that the wife did not challenge husband’s testimony that he used non-marital funds to buy the items does not equate to an admission by the wife.  Husband still had to meet his burden of proof. 

Husband’s military retirement benefits:  The trial court found that since the parties were married for 2 months of husband’s 270 months of service credit, wife was entitled to $8.08 per month for the remainder of husband’s life.  Instead of requiring the husband to make such a small monthly payment to the wife, the court ordered husband to pay the wife a lump sum of $3000.  The court did not give an explanation of how it arrived at the lump sum amount.  COA agreed that the wife would be entitled to $8.08 per month for the rest of the husband’s life and that the trial court had discretion to convert the payments to a lump sum.  COA reversed and remanded for an explanation of how the court arrived at $3000.00 as a fair calculation of the wife’s future interest. 

The final issue on appeal concerned whether the trial court erred in not awarding the husband attorney fees after finding the wife to be in contempt of court more than once.  COA affirmed, finding that the trial court is not authorized to consider any other factors beyond the financial positions of the parties when awarding attorney fees.  COA also noted that the husband was awarded attorney fees in the companion appeal, specifically addressing the finding of contempt. 

Digested by Sarah Jost Nielsen, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates