Matt E. Miniard v. Heather Silvanik ( 2023 )

RENDERED: OCTOBER 13, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2022-CA-0881-MR
MATT E. MINIARD APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE JULIE M. GOODMAN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 22-CI-01250
HEATHER SILVANIK; ALLEN
CARTER; ANGIE QUIGLEY;
BARBARA BENTLEY; BRENT
BARTON; CHRISTOPHER ROWE;
AND JOHN JAMES APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CETRULO, DIXON, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
MCNEILL, JUDGE: Matt Miniard (“Miniard”) appeals from the Fayette Circuit
Court’s order dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted under CR 12.02(f).1 Finding no error, we affirm.
1
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
BACKGROUND
Miniard is a former elected board supervisor of the Fayette County
Conservation District (“FCCD”).2 Appellees, with one exception, are also board
supervisors. 3 On May 5, 2022, Miniard filed a declaratory judgment action in
Fayette Circuit Court alleging harassment and Civil Rights violations against
appellees, among other things. Appellees moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant
to CR 12.02(f). Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, finding
Miniard’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
While the trial court’s written order did not explain its reasoning, at
the hearing on the motion, the court held Miniard’s claims were not proper subjects
for a declaratory judgment action, and he had not stated a valid discrimination
claim. The court noted potential separation of powers issues, as many of Miniard’s
claims asked the court to instruct supervisors of the FCCD, an administrative body,
how to do their jobs. Ultimately, the court dismissed Miniard’s claim without
prejudice. This appeal followed.
2
Miniard was removed as a board member on June 6, 2023, by vote of the board.
3
Appellees are John James, Allen Carter, Christopher Rowe, Barbara Bentley, Angie Quigley,
Brett Barton, and Heather Silvanik. Silvanik is not a board member but is employed by Fayette
County Soil and Water Conservation District as Director of Operations.
-2-
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted admits as true the material facts of the complaint[]” and should not
be granted “unless it appears the pleading party would not be entitled to relief
under any set of facts which could be proved.” Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1, 7
(Ky. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Because
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is a question of law, we review the
issue de novo. Id. Further, “[w]hen a motion to dismiss a complaint seeking a
declaration of rights is filed, the question presented to the circuit court is not
whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but rather whether the complaint states
a cause of action for declaratory relief.” Curry v. Coyne, 992 S.W.2d 858, 859
(Ky. App. 1998) (citing City of Louisville v. Stock Yards Bank & Trust Co., 843
S.W.2d 327, 328 (Ky. 1992)).
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, Miniard’s brief contains multiple deficiencies,
including the lack of an argument section with ample references to the record and
citations to authority and the lack of a statement of preservation, in violation of the
Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure 32(A)(4). However, as Miniard is a pro se
litigant, and procedural rules are often construed liberally in their favor, we
-3-
exercise our discretion to ignore the deficiencies and review the merits of the
appeal. See RAP 31(H).
On appeal, Miniard does not address the trial court’s dismissal under
CR 12.02(f). Instead, he essentially copies and pastes his complaint, listing
twenty-four numbered allegations (more if subparts are considered) against
appellees, and requests this Court make a declaration of rights concerning each. 4
However, “under KRS 418.040, the circuit court, not the Court of Appeals is the
appropriate forum in which to seek a declaration of rights.” Courier-Journal and
Louisville Times Co. v. Peers, 747 S.W.2d 125, 126 (Ky. 1988). As a Court of
appellate jurisdiction, Section 111(2) of the Kentucky Constitution, our review is
limited to determining whether the trial court erred in dismissing Miniard’s
declaratory judgment action under CR 12.02(f).
Miniard’s numerous allegations can be grouped into civil rights
violations, claims of harassment, and grievances against his fellow board
4
Miniard’s brief also makes a request for a “CR 65 permanent injunction providing
consequential relief” but does not develop this argument or specifically state what behavior he
seeks to have enjoined. This request was also not made to the trial court, so we decline to
address it here. See Fischer v. Fischer, 348 S.W.3d 582, 588 (Ky. 2011), as modified (Sep. 20,
2011), abrogated on other grounds by Nami Res. Co., L.L.C. v. Asher Land & Min., Ltd., 554
S.W.3d 323 (Ky. 2018) (“[S]pecific grounds not raised before the trial court, but raised for the
first time on appeal will not support a favorable ruling on appeal.”). Miniard also alleges the
trial court violated his due process rights by failing to issue a declaration of rights, but he does
not develop this argument or cite any authority in support. It is not the function of an appellate
court to research and construct a party’s legal arguments. Hadley v. Citizen Deposit Bank, 186
S.W.3d 754, 759 (Ky. App. 2005). Further, “an alleged error may be deemed waived where an
appellant fails to cite any authority in support of the issues and arguments advanced on appeal.”
Id. We consider Miniard’s due process argument waived.
-4-
supervisors and board procedure. As to civil rights violations, the exact legal basis
for Miniard’s claim is unclear, as he simply cites the definition of discrimination in
KRS 344.010(5). Regardless, the Kentucky Civil Rights Act5 protects against
discrimination from employers,6 and Miniard’s accusations pertain to his fellow
elected officials. Further, the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against
members of a protected class, but Miniard makes no allegations of discrimination
based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability. See KRS
344.020(1)(b).
Instead, Miniard says he was denied a committee position because he
was not a farmer. He also claims Appellee Christopher Rowe “was [the] lead
antagonist of . . . personal attacks on [Miniard] by other board members including
. . . voting [Miniard] off of the board.” Simply put, Miniard has not alleged facts
sufficient to support a violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act and therefore was
not entitled to a declaration that his rights had been violated.
The same holds true for his harassment claims. Miniard seeks a
declaration of rights that he was harassed under KRS 525.070(1)(c) and (e), which
provides:
5
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 344.010 et seq.
6
The Act also prohibits discrimination in other circumstances, not applicable here, such as
employment agencies (KRS 344.050), labor organizations (KRS 344.060), and discrimination in
apprenticeships (KRS 344.070).
-5-
(1) A person is guilty of harassment when, with intent to
intimidate, harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or
she:
...
(c) In a public place, makes an offensively coarse
utterance, gesture, or display, or addresses abusive
language to any person present
...
(e) Engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly
commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such
other person and which serve no legitimate
purpose[.]”
Miniard alleges Appellee Rowe “attacks” him by countering everything he tries to
do as a board member, Appellees Allen Carter and Barbara Bentley act like
children during board meetings, snickering and chuckling at him, and appellees
threatened to vote down any action he tries to take as a board member.
KRS 525.070(1)(c) requires that the harassment occur in a public
place, defined as “a place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has
access[.]” KRS 525.010(3). Here, Miniard’s allegations concern either private
conversations with other board supervisors or FCCD meetings conducted over
video chat. Miniard has not claimed any of the alleged harassment took place in a
public place as defined by statute.
Further, Miniard has not sufficiently alleged appellees engaged in a
course of conduct or repeatedly committed acts of harassment as required under
-6-
KRS 525.070(1)(e). Miniard claims that when he would not resign after being
voted off the board, appellees told him they would vote down any action he
attempted to take as a board member. He also contends Appellee Heather Silvanik
“one time . . . pulled my ‘plug’ in [a] Zoom meeting [and] another time . . .
‘muted’ my abilities to participate in the meeting.” These allegations concern
singular acts, not a course of conduct.
Moreover, under KRS 525.070(1)(e) the harassment must serve no
legitimate purpose. Most of Miniard’s claimed harassment is simply
disagreements with his fellow board supervisors about FCCD matters. Thus, it
cannot be said the alleged acts served no useful purpose. In sum, Miniard’s
allegations do not meet the standard of harassment, therefore the trial court did not
err in dismissing his claim for declaratory relief.
Finally, Miniard claims he was entitled to a declaration of rights on
multiple other issues. Essentially, he asks this Court, as he did the trial court, to
adjudicate his personal grievances with the FCCD board supervisors and
operations. For instance, he seeks an opinion as to why Appellee John James has
two committee positions, and he has none. In another instance, Miniard asks us to
declare he has the right to expose FCCD board supervisors’ illegal actions, and
elsewhere, the right to fire Appellee Silvanik.
-7-
However, Miniard’s disagreements with other board supervisors are
not proper subject matter for a declaratory judgment action. “Courts are not
available for the settlement of arguments or differences of opinions, but adjudicate
actual controversies involving legal rights.” Curry, 992 S.W.2d at 860 (citing
Kelly v. Jackson, 268 S.W. 539 (Ky. 1925)). We note that Miniard is no longer a
member of FCCD’s board, therefore there is no actual, existing controversy. “An
actual, justiciable controversy is a condition precedent to an action under our
Declaratory Judgment Act.” Cameron v. Beshear, 628 S.W.3d 61, 68 (Ky. 2021)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Foley v. Commonwealth,
306 S.W.3d 28, 31 (Ky. 2010) (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (“An actual
controversy for purposes of the declaratory judgment statute, requires a
controversy over present rights, duties, and liabilities . . . .”).
Further, even assuming an actual controversy, Miniard fails to
develop or cite any authority in support of his arguments. Therefore, we decline to
address any alleged error of the trial court in dismissing these claims. See Hadley
v. Citizen Deposit Bank, 186 S.W.3d 754, 759 (Ky. App. 2005) (citations omitted)
(“[A]n alleged error may be deemed waived where an appellant fails to cite any
authority in support of the issues and arguments advanced on appeal. . . . It is not
our function as an appellate court to research and construct a party’s legal
arguments . . . .”).
-8-
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the order of the Fayette Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:
Matt E. Miniard, pro se D. Barry Stilz
Lexington, Kentucky Lynn Sowards Zellen
Lexington, Kentucky
-9-