Alixandria D. Sharpe v. Felix H. Sharpe, II ( 2023 )

RENDERED: APRIL 28, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2022-CA-0092-MR
AND
NO. 2022-CA-0197-MR
ALIXANDRIA D. SHARPE APPELLANT
APPEALS FROM JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT
v. HONORABLE TARA HAGERTY, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 19-CI-502309
FELIX H. SHARPE, II APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, LAMBERT, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
LAMBERT, JUDGE: This is a dissolution action in which Alixandria D. Sharpe
has appealed from three orders of the Jefferson Family Court related to the award
of child support and maintenance, including the family court’s finding that she was
underemployed and the amount of income it imputed to her. We affirm.
Alixandria and Felix H. Sharpe II were married on August 10, 2012,
in Michigan. Three children were born of the marriage; one son in 2016, and twins
(a son and a daughter) in 2019. The parties separated on December 16, 2018, and
Felix filed a petition to dissolve the marriage on July 30, 2019. He requested that
the court grant them joint custody of the children, order him to pay child support,
and equitably divide the marital property and debts after assigning the non-marital
property. Felix, who is an attorney, filed the petition pro se, after which he
retained an attorney to represent him. In his preliminary verified disclosure
statement, Felix listed his gross monthly income as $10,833.33 and Alixandria’s as
$600.00. He paid the children’s insurance premiums of $1,078.00 per month.
Felix also listed their automobiles, checking accounts, and retirement accounts. He
listed a marital debt of $1,962.88 to Champion Farms, an apartment where they
had lived prior to the separation. Felix’s student loan was listed as non-marital.
We note that both Felix and Alixandria have a child born prior to the marriage
from previous relationships.
On February 16, 2021, Felix filed a motion for a default judgment and
a decree of dissolution. In support of his motion, Felix filed a written deposition in
which he stated that Alixandria was voluntarily unemployed. She had a Bachelor
of Arts degree and was able to work as a schoolteacher earning about $40,000.00
per year. He again requested joint custody of the children with an equal parenting
-2-
schedule. He included the other statutory information to support his petition to
dissolve the marriage and noted that Alixandria was in default as she had not filed
a response, despite having been served by the sheriff on October 4, 2019. In his
tendered decree, Felix stated that Alixandria was capable of earning $40,000.00
per year based upon her education and skillset and that he should pay her
$1,460.27 per month in child support based upon the statutory guidelines. Shortly
thereafter, counsel entered an appearance on behalf of Alixandria.
On May 6, 2021, Alixandria filed her preliminary verified disclosure
statement. For her income, she listed $691.42 in child support, which she received
for her older son born prior to the marriage. She stated the Champion Farms debt
was now $2,235.00 and that she also had a student loan debt. Her monthly
expenses totaled $4,157.00. The following month, Alixandria filed a motion for
the court to enter a financial status quo order. In an attached affidavit, Alixandria
stated that her older child as well as the three children she had with Felix lived
primarily with her. By agreement, Felix had been paying for her rent ($1,625.00
per month), groceries ($400.00 every two weeks), car insurance for the van used to
transport the children, the utility bills for the residence ($214.00 per month),
internet ($43.00 per month), and her cell phone bill ($10.00 to $25.00 per month).
Felix had recently stopped paying the internet bill. Alixandria and the children
were all on Felix’s health and dental insurance plans. Her only independent
-3-
income was child support she received for her oldest son. She needed to take
additional courses or be retrained so that she could be certified as an art teacher.
The court entered a status quo order and ordered that the parties would continue to
share temporary joint custody of the children with Felix continuing to pay for
household expenses as he had during the separation. On July 16, 2021, the court
entered a limited decree dissolving the marriage.
Felix filed his final verified disclosure statement on September 30,
2021. His gross monthly income was $11,500.00, and he paid $1,624.00 for the
children’s insurance. There were three automobiles, two of which had no debt
owed and one, for which he was the primary driver, had a debt of $20,468.00.
Felix was claiming that car as his non-marital property. He again listed bank and
retirement accounts. His student loan balance was $64,817.00, on which he paid
$500.00 per month, and Alixandria’s student loan balance was $87,197.00.
Alixandria filed her final verified disclosure shortly thereafter. She
listed her income as $691.42. She worked for Portland Christian School and was
paid via tuition credit. She stated she was paying $5.00 per month for her student
loan.
In his pre-trial compliance, Felix requested that the court take into
account their 50/50 shared parenting schedule when calculating child support. He
also requested that the court impute an income to Alixandria at a minimum of
-4-
$15.00 per hour for full-time work ($1,733.33 per month). He stated that she
currently earned $10.00 per hour for part-time work. He believed she was capable
of earning at least $15.00 per hour. The only remaining debts were non-marital
student loans. If maintenance were to be granted to Alixandria, Felix requested
that the duration be limited, taking into account the support he had been providing
since their separation three years ago. In an amended disclosure, Felix indicated
that he was currently paying $824.00 per month for the children’s insurance; that
amount would decrease to $428.00 per month when he was able to amend his
coverage.
On October 3, 2021, Felix filed a motion to hold Alixandria in
contempt related to her failure to abide by their temporary parenting schedule. He
believed she was acting intentionally and in retaliation for his filing the dissolution
action and, therefore, requested legal expenses related to filing the motion.
Alixandria filed her trial memorandum on October 4, 2021. She
indicated that she was earning $10.00 per hour for her part-time work at Portland
Christian School but that these earnings went to defraying the cost of tuition for
their oldest child. As to the student loans, she stated that they had agreed during
the marriage that they would live frugally to first reduce Felix’s debt, and then they
would do the same with hers. She requested that Felix be ordered to pay the
interest that had accrued during the marriage, which totaled $12,472.25 from 2012
-5-
to 2020. She also stated that during the marriage, she and Felix had agreed that she
would stay home to take care of the children while they were young. She planned
to enroll in a master’s art therapy program at the University of Louisville in the
Fall of 2020, from which she would graduate in 2024. Therefore, she requested
maintenance for three years. Due to the disparity in their incomes, she requested
an award of attorney’s fees and costs. To date, she had incurred $2,800.00 in
attorney’s fees and a mediator’s fee of $475.00.
A trial was held for October 7, 2021. The parties presented their joint
stipulations prior to the taking of testimony, including that they would share joint
custody of the three children with equal parenting time on a week-on/week-off
basis, the parenting schedule, the holiday and vacation schedule, and that Felix’s
2011 Toyota Highlander was his separate non-marital property. Felix and
Alixandria both testified regarding the remaining contested issues, including
maintenance and child support.
The parties both filed post-trial memoranda. In his memorandum,
Felix indicated that the issues before the court were maintenance, child support, tax
dependency claims, the division of marital property, attorney’s fees, and his
motion to hold Alixandria in contempt. The court had ruled at the conclusion of
the trial that he would not have to pay any amount toward Alixandria’s student
loans. Felix argued that Alixandria was not entitled to maintenance, noting that
-6-
she had failed to prove that she was unable to support herself through appropriate
employment. In addition, she had been awarded a vehicle worth $12,000.00 and
would be receiving an equitable share of his retirement accounts. If maintenance
were to be granted, he requested that it be temporary. As to child support, Felix
requested that the court impute a higher income to Alixandria based on her level of
education and the current job market.
In her memorandum, Alixandria pointed out that she had been a
homemaker during the nine-year marriage by mutual agreement. She believed
Felix’s argument that she should have been able to obtain gainful employment
during the separation ignored that she was caring for three young children during
the pandemic, when it was not easy to find childcare. Alixandria sought $1,250.00
per month in rehabilitative maintenance for three years. This would allow her to
continue her education to obtain a degree in art therapy by 2024. She disagreed
that the court should impute income to her of more than $10.00 per hour with
respect to the child support calculation. She was taking two classes that would
require 30 hours per week of her time, and she was working part-time (six to seven
hours per week) earning $10.00 per hour. Her work paid for their oldest child’s
preschool and aftercare fees. Finally, she requested attorney’s fees and costs.
The court entered an order on December 22, 2021, in which it
addressed the disputed issues. As far as marital property, the court ordered Felix’s
-7-
two retirement accounts to be equitably distributed. One account had a balance of
$65,524.00 (less Felix’s agreed non-marital claim of $15,324.00) at the time he
filed his disclosure, and the other had a balance of $31,797.23 at the date of
dissolution. The court awarded Alixandria the 2014 Dodge Caravan, which had an
assessed value of $10,863.00. For purposes of maintenance and child support
calculations, the court imputed an income of $15.00 per hour for full-time work to
Alixandria. The court did not find it credible that she could not work while
pursuing her master’s degree. The court found that maintenance was appropriate
based upon Alixandria’s role as the primary caregiver for their children, lack of
work outside of the home, and Felix’s substantially higher income. It opted to
award her $1,250.00 per month for 18 months rather than the three years that she
had requested. As to child support, the court found Felix’s obligation to Alixandria
was $718.00 per month based upon his gross monthly salary of $11,500.00 and her
gross monthly income of $2,600.00 (imputing income to her of $15.00 per hour for
full-time employment). This was based upon their 50/50 shared parenting
schedule, including Felix’s payment of $1,577.40 per month for the children’s
insurance and day care expenses. The court ordered Felix to pay $2,800.00 in
attorney’s fees pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 403.220 due to the
large discrepancy in their incomes. The court then found Alixandria in contempt
-8-
for willfully disobeying the parenting schedule. As a result, the court denied her
motion for Felix to pay the mediation fee.
On January 12, 2022, Alixandria moved the court to order the parties
to participate in a mediation conference related to child support as Felix had new
employment, among other issues. In an attached affidavit, Alixandria stated that
she was requesting modification of Felix’s child support obligation based upon his
new employment; she requested income records as well as documentation of the
children’s portion of the insurance premium. In response, Felix confirmed that he
had recently obtained new employment with a base salary of $160,000.00 per year.
He also received a sign-on bonus of $8,000.00. He did not believe mediation was
necessary as the court could recalculate child support based on his new salary as
well as Alixandria’s imputed income of $15.00 per hour and the $1,250.00 per
month in maintenance that she received. Felix included a Craig Ross child support
report establishing that his child support obligation was $421.00 per month, which
took into account the $2,154.00 he paid each month in childcare and insurance.
Alixandria filed a notice of appeal from the December 22, 2021, order
on January 20, 2022 (Appeal No. 2022-CA-0092-MR). Shortly thereafter, Felix’s
counsel withdrew her representation with the note that he would proceed pro se.
-9-
On February 8, 2022, the court entered an order ruling on Alixandria’s
motion. It addressed the various issues and denied her motion to mediate. As to
child support, the court ruled as follows:
The Court has received and reviewed Felix’s proof
of current income ($160,000.00 base salary), including
the bonus ($8,000.00); considered the income previously
imputed to Alixandria ($31,200.00 annual salary);
considered the monthly maintenance Felix is paying
Alixandria for eighteen months ($1250.00); considered
Felix’s monthly day care and health care expenses for the
parties’ children [$2,150.00]; and considered the
continued 50/50 parenting schedule. Based on the
aforementioned figures, the Court hereby modifies
Felix’s monthly child support obligation to $498.00,
effective upon entry of this Order.
In a footnote, the court stated that in the December order, it had erroneously failed
to include the $1,250.00 in maintenance Alixandria received as gross income for
her. Once that obligation expired, it would entertain a motion to modify Felix’s
child support obligation.
Alixandria moved to vacate the February 8, 2022, order pursuant to
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 59.05 due to the filing of her notice of
appeal. In response, Felix stated that under Kentucky law, the family court
maintained concurrent jurisdiction with the appellate court while an appeal was
pending for issues of custody and child support, citing Johnson v. Commonwealth,
17 S.W.3d 109, 113 (Ky. 2020). Because the issues before the court in
-10-
Alixandria’s motion dealt with custody and child support, the motion to vacate
should be denied.
The court entered an order on February 21, 2022. It first summarized
the proceedings at the February 14, 2022, motion hour, indicating that Alixandria,
through counsel, moved to withdraw her motion to vacate, stating that it had been
filed in error. The court stated that it retained jurisdiction to rule on child support
issues and therefore denied her motion to vacate for that reason. Her counsel then
orally moved the court to amend a portion of the February 8th order related to tax
exemptions and requested additional information as to how it had calculated
Felix’s child support obligation. It granted her oral motion as to the tax
exemptions. And it granted the motion to clarify how it calculated child support.
After reciting the amounts it had considered in the February 8th order, the court
stated that it had input the figures into the Craig Ross program, which resulted in a
modification of Felix’s monthly child support obligation to $498.00 per month. It
included the Craig Ross child support report upon which it based that amount. The
report recited that Felix paid $2,150.00 per month in childcare and insurance for
the children. Alixandria did not pay any of those expenses. Alixandria filed her
second notice of appeal from the February 8 and February 21, 2022, orders on
February 22, 2022 (an amended version was filed the next day) (Appeal No. 2022-
CA-0197-MR).
-11-
On appeal, Alixandria contends that the family court erred in imputing
income to her for purposes of maintenance and the calculation of child support.
She also argues that the court erred in relying upon the Craig Ross program when it
calculated Felix’s child support obligation.
CR 52.01 provides the general framework for the family court as well
as review in the Court of Appeals:
In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with
an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specifically
and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and
render an appropriate judgment[.] . . . Findings of fact,
shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due
regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court
to judge the credibility of the witnesses.
See Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336, 354 (Ky. 2003) (footnote omitted) (An
appellate court may set aside a lower court’s findings made pursuant to CR 52.01
“only if those findings are clearly erroneous”). The Asente Court went on to
address substantial evidence:
“[S]ubstantial evidence” is “[e]vidence that a reasonable
mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion”
and evidence that, when “taken alone or in the light of all
the evidence, . . . has sufficient probative value to induce
conviction in the minds of reasonable men.” Regardless
of conflicting evidence, the weight of the evidence, or the
fact that the reviewing court would have reached a
contrary finding, “due regard shall be given to the
opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of
the witnesses” because judging the credibility of
witnesses and weighing evidence are tasks within the
exclusive province of the trial court. Thus, “[m]ere doubt
-12-
as to the correctness of [a] finding [will] not justify [its]
reversal,” and appellate courts should not disturb trial
court findings that are supported by substantial evidence.
Id. (footnotes omitted).
We shall first address Alixandria’s argument related to child support.
Our standard of review of child support obligations is set forth in C.D.G. v. N.J.S.,
469 S.W.3d 413, 418 (Ky. 2015):
As the courts of this Commonwealth have
repeatedly stated, trial courts have broad discretion in
determining child-support matters. See Artrip v. Noe,
311 S.W.3d 229, 232 (Ky. 2010) (“The trial court is
vested with broad discretion in the establishment,
enforcement, and modification of child support.”); Van
Meter v. Smith, 14 S.W.3d 569, 574 (Ky. App. 2000)
(“[T]his state’s domestic relations law is founded upon
general statutory guidelines and presumptions within
which the trial court has considerable discretion. The
trial court has discretion in many instances, moreover, to
deviate from the statutory parameters, but only if it
makes findings clearly justifying the deviation.”).
“[T]hat discretion extends, pursuant to KRS 403.211(2)-
(4), to deviations from guidelines-determined child
support amounts.” Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health
and Family Services v. Ivy, 353 S.W.3d 324, 329 (Ky.
2011).
“The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary,
unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” C.D.G., 469
S.W.3d. at 421 (quoting Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky.
1999)).
-13-
KRS 403.211 addresses child support and provides courts with an
option to deviate from the guidelines set forth in KRS 403.212 (or KRS 403.2121)
under certain circumstances:
(2) At the time of initial establishment of a child support
order, whether temporary or permanent, or in any
proceeding to modify a support order, the child support
guidelines in KRS 403.212 [or KRS 403.2121] shall
serve as a rebuttable presumption for the establishment or
modification of the amount of child support. Courts may
deviate from the guidelines where their application would
be unjust or inappropriate. Any deviation shall be
accompanied by a written finding or specific finding on
the record by the court, specifying the reason for the
deviation.
(3) A written finding or specific finding on the record
that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or
inappropriate in a particular case shall be sufficient to
rebut the presumption and allow for an appropriate
adjustment of the guideline award if based upon one (1)
or more of the following criteria:
(a) A child’s extraordinary medical or dental
needs;
(b) A child’s extraordinary educational, job
training, or special needs;
(c) Either parent’s own extraordinary needs,
such as medical expenses;
(d) The independent financial resources, if
any, of the child or children;
(e) Combined monthly adjusted parental
gross income in excess of the Kentucky
child support guidelines;
-14-
(f) The parents of the child, having
demonstrated knowledge of the amount of
child support established by the Kentucky
child support guidelines, have agreed to
child support different from the guideline
amount. However, no such agreement shall
be the basis of any deviation if public
assistance is being paid on behalf of a child
under the provisions of Part D of Title IV of
the Federal Social Security Act; and
(g) Any similar factor of an extraordinary
nature specifically identified by the court
which would make application of the
guidelines inappropriate.
(Footnote omitted.) This version was effective between June 29, 2021, and July
13, 2022; the current version includes the additional mention of KRS 403.2121,
which appears in brackets above.1
In Plattner v. Plattner, 228 S.W.3d 577, 579-80 (Ky. App. 2007), this
Court discussed the flexibility of the child support guidelines:
1
The version of KRS 403.2121(1) effective until March 31, 2023, provides, in relevant part:
Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section or otherwise provided in this
chapter, the child support obligation determined under KRS 403.212 shall be
subject to further adjustment as follows:
(a) If the parents share equal parenting time, the child support
obligation determined under KRS 403.212 shall be divided
between the parents in proportion to their combined monthly
adjusted parental gross income, and the parent with the greater
proportional child support obligation shall pay the parent with the
lesser proportional obligation the difference in the value of each
parent’s proportional obligation[.]
-15-
While Kentucky’s child support guidelines do not
contemplate such a shared custody arrangement, they do
reflect the equal duty of both parents to contribute to the
support of their children in proportion to their respective
net incomes. They also provide a measure of flexibility
that is particularly relevant in this case. Under the
provisions of KRS 403.211(2) and (3), a trial court may
deviate from the child support guidelines when it finds
that their application would be unjust or inappropriate.
The period of time during which the children reside with
each parent may be considered in determining child
support, and a relatively equal division of physical
custody may constitute valid grounds for deviating from
the guidelines. Brown v. Brown, Ky. App. 952 S.W.2d
707 (Ky. App. 1997); Downey v. Rogers, 847 S.W.2d 63(Ky. App. 1993).
In Downey v. Rogers, 847 S.W.2d 63 (Ky. App.
1993), we declined to conclude that a trial court had
abused its discretion by awarding child support where the
parties shared legal custody and shared equal or almost
equal physical custody of their children. However, our
conclusion was based, in part, upon the fact that the
children’s father had agreed to pay a portion of his child
support obligation to the children’s mother. We also
noted that the children’s father earned twice as much
annually as did their mother; thus, her share of the
children’s expenses was proportionately more
cumbersome.
The evidence as described in Plattner’s brief is
notably different and distinguishable and does not
support the conclusion that his child support obligation as
reflected in the guidelines should be paid to Levoir. The
parties were awarded joint custody of the children, and
neither of them was designated as the primary residential
custodian. Because physical custody of the children is
evenly divided between the parents, they bear an almost
identical responsibility for the day-to-day expenses
associated with their care. And since there is no
-16-
significant disparity between the parties’ annual income,
the expenses necessary to provide a home for the children
(even when they are not in residence) are also incurred
by each party in equal proportion.
The statutory guidelines offer sufficient flexibility
to allow the trial court to fashion appropriate and just
child support orders. Under the unique circumstances of
this case, we conclude that the trial court erred by
awarding child support to Levoir.
In the present case, the family court opted to impute income to
Alixandria for purposes of computing Felix’s child support obligation. KRS
403.212(3)(e)2 permits a trial court to impute income to a parent under the
following circumstances:
1. If there is a finding that a parent is voluntarily
unemployed or underemployed, child support shall be
calculated based on a determination of potential income,
except that a finding of voluntary unemployment or
underemployment and a determination of potential
income shall not be made for a parent who is
incarcerated, physically or mentally incapacitated, or is
caring for a very young child, age three (3) or younger,
for whom the parents owe a joint legal responsibility;
2. A court may find a parent is voluntarily unemployed or
underemployed without finding that the parent intended
to avoid or reduce the child support obligation; and
3. Imputation of potential income, when applicable, shall
include consideration of the following circumstances of
the parents, to the extent known:
2
The prior version, which was effective from June 29, 2021, until the present version became
effective on July 14, 2022, contains the same language; only the numbering of the subsection
was changed.
-17-
a. Assets and residence;
b. Employment, earning history, and job
skills;
c. Educational level, literacy, age, health,
and criminal record that could impair the
ability to gain or continue employment;
d. Record of seeking work;
e. Local labor market, including availability
of employment for which the parent may be
qualified and employable;
f. Prevailing earnings in the local labor
market; and
g. Other relevant background factors,
including employment barriers[.]
Alixandria cites this Court to Lambert v. Lambert, 475 S.W.3d 646(Ky. App. 2015), in which this Court reversed the imputation of income to the
mother for purposes of child support because she was caring for her two youngest
children, who were under the age of three.
Child support determinations are based on the
combined gross income of both parents. In calculating
child support obligations, income may only be imputed to
parents when the parent is voluntarily unemployed or
underemployed, and such a calculation is to be based
upon the parent’s potential income. KRS 403.212(2)(d);
Howard v. Howard, 336 S.W.3d 433, 439 (Ky. 2011).
If a parent is voluntarily unemployed or
underemployed, child support shall be
-18-
calculated based on a determination of
potential income, except that a
determination of potential income shall
not be made for a parent who is physically
or mentally incapacitated or is caring for a
very young child, age three (3) or
younger, for whom the parents owe a joint
legal responsibility.”
KRS 403.212(2)(d) (emphasis added). Janessa is
currently caring for her two youngest children, both of
whom are under the age of three. We therefore find that
the circuit court abused its discretion by imputing
minimum wage to Janessa. On remand, the circuit court
must note Janessa’s income as zero and order the
minimum $60 monthly child support obligation.
Lambert, 475 S.W.3d at 653-54 (footnote omitted).
We agree with Felix that the facts in Lambert are different from the
present case as the mother in Lambert was caring for two children under the age of
three who were not involved in the custody action. Here, that is not the case. The
children under the age of three are the subject of the custody order, and the parties
have joint custody of them with 50/50 parenting time. The mother has another
child, but he is older than the age of three. In addition, Alixandria is able to work,
and she was in fact working at a preschool for tuition credit. The twins were in
daycare during the week while she worked, and she would be taking classes.
Alixandria is well-educated, with a bachelor’s degree, and she was planning to
seek a master’s degree. And, as Felix pointed out, Alixandria admitted in her trial
memorandum that she should be imputed an income of $10.00 per hour.
-19-
Therefore, we hold that the exception related to raising a very young child does not
apply here. We find no abuse of discretion in the family court’s decision to impute
an income to Alixandria of $15.00 per hour for full-time employment.
Alixandria also disputes the family court’s decision to use the Craig
Ross program to calculate child support, arguing that the algorithm used by the
program is at odds with KRS 403.212, specifically citing the enhanced multiplier
the program uses. We find no reason to question the family court’s use of the
Craig Ross program to calculate child support in this instance, especially as it takes
into account how much time each parent has with the children as contemplated in
KRS 403.2121. We also find no abuse of discretion in the family court’s
calculation of child support. As we stated in Plattner, supra, “[w]ithin statutory
parameters, the establishment, modification, and enforcement of child support
obligations are left to the sound discretion of the trial court. However, this
discretion is not unlimited. It must be fair, reasonable, and supported by sound
legal principles.” Plattner, 228 S.W.3d at 579 (citations omitted). The evidence
established that the parties share equal parenting time of the children, Felix pays
$2,150.00 per month in childcare and insurance for the children, and Alixandria
receives $1,250.00 per month in maintenance. While there is a large discrepancy
in their respective incomes, the amount of child support awarded is overall a fair
-20-
amount, and the court noted that the amount could be modified once Alixandria’s
maintenance payments ended.
Next, Alixandria argues that the family court erred in calculating her
maintenance award when it deemed her to be underemployed. KRS 403.200
addresses when a maintenance award is appropriate and the relevant factors for a
court to consider:
(1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal
separation, or a proceeding for maintenance following
dissolution of a marriage by a court which lacked
personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse, the court
may grant a maintenance order for either spouse only if it
finds that the spouse seeking maintenance:
(a) Lacks sufficient property, including
marital property apportioned to him, to
provide for his reasonable needs; and
(b) Is unable to support himself through
appropriate employment or is the custodian
of a child whose condition or circumstances
make it appropriate that the custodian not be
required to seek employment outside the
home.
(2) The maintenance order shall be in such amounts and
for such periods of time as the court deems just, and after
considering all relevant factors including:
(a) The financial resources of the party
seeking maintenance, including marital
property apportioned to him, and his ability
to meet his needs independently, including
the extent to which a provision for support
-21-
of a child living with the party includes a
sum for that party as custodian;
(b) The time necessary to acquire sufficient
education or training to enable the party
seeking maintenance to find appropriate
employment;
(c) The standard of living established during
the marriage;
(d) The duration of the marriage;
(e) The age, and the physical and emotional
condition of the spouse seeking
maintenance; and
(f) The ability of the spouse from whom
maintenance is sought to meet his needs
while meeting those of the spouse seeking
maintenance.
“This is a matter that comes within the discretion of the trial court.” Browning v.
Browning, 551 S.W.2d 823, 825 (Ky. App. 1977).
Alixandria argues that unlike the child support statute, KRS 403.200
does not include a provision that permits the imputation of income to a spouse who
is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. This Court rejected that argument in
McGregor v. McGregor, 334 S.W.3d 113, 117 (Ky. App. 2011), and we find no
reason to disagree with this holding:
In contrast, the maintenance statute, KRS 403.200,
does not explicitly include a similar provision permitting
a court to impute income to a voluntarily unemployed or
underemployed spouse. In determining if a spouse is
-22-
entitled to maintenance, a trial court must find, among
other things, that the spouse seeking maintenance “[i]s
unable to support [herself] through appropriate
employment . . . .” KRS 403.200(1)(b). To set the
appropriate amount and duration of maintenance under
KRS 403.200(2), the court must consider several factors,
including a spouse’s financial resources, ability to find
appropriate employment, and the standard of living
enjoyed during the marriage. While a case of first
impression, it is implicit in this statutory language that a
court may impute income to a voluntarily unemployed or
underemployed spouse to determine both the spouse’s
entitlement to maintenance and the amount and duration
of maintenance. This practice has found favor in other
jurisdictions throughout the United States when a trial
court has imputed income to an underemployed or
unemployed spouse. See, Evans v. Evans, 45 S.W.3d 523(Mo. App. 2001) (imputing income to a spouse
requesting maintenance); Stirewalt v. Stirewalt, 307
S.W.3d 701 (Mo. App. 2010) (imputing income to a
spouse required to pay maintenance); LeRoy v. LeRoy,
600 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. App. 1999) (a court may
consider past earnings and earning capacity to estimate
future income in determining ability to pay maintenance);
Steinberg v. Steinberg, 59 A.D.3d 702, 874 N.Y.S.2d 230(N.Y. 2009) (may impute income based upon a party’s
past income or demonstrated future potential earnings).
Because the family court awarded her the amount of monthly
maintenance she had requested ($1,250.00), Alixandria’s actual dispute is with the
duration of maintenance she was awarded. She had requested three years of
maintenance during the time it would take for her to finish her master’s degree
program; instead, the court awarded her maintenance for 18 months. The court
considered the relevant factors, including the duration of the marriage and the time
-23-
it would take her to finish her education. The court did not find it credible that
Alixandria would not be able to work more than she currently was (part-time for
tuition credit) while she pursued her master’s degree, noting the current job market
and that she was “a personable and well-spoken person with a college degree.” We
find no abuse of discretion in either the amount or the duration of maintenance
awarded in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Jefferson Family Court are
affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
J. Gregory Troutman Felix H. Sharpe, II, pro se
Wm. Dennis Sims Louisville, Kentucky
Louisville, Kentucky
-24-