Brittany Layne Adair v. Brandon Lee Adair

RENDERED: APRIL 28, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2022-CA-0236-MR
BRITTANY ADAIR APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM BULLITT FAMILY COURT
v. HONORABLE MONICA K. MEREDITH, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 20-CI-00592
BRANDON LEE ADAIR APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: ACREE, KAREM, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
KAREM, JUDGE: Brittany Adair (“Brittany”) appeals from the Bullitt Family
Court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree of dissolution of her
marriage to Brandon Lee Adair (“Brandon”). She also appeals from the Bullitt
Family Court’s order denying her motion to alter, amend, or vacate. Specifically,
Brittany takes issue with the family court’s distribution of marital property and
how the family court calculated her monthly income in determining her award of
monthly spousal maintenance. Moreover, Brittany argues that the family court
abused its discretion by punishing Brittany for having physical and mental
disabilities and through alleged personal biases and unprofessional conduct.
Finding no error, we affirm the family court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Brittany and Brandon married in July 2010 and separated in July
2020. Brandon filed a petition for dissolution of marriage action on August 10,
2020. While the couple had two minor children, Brittany is not appealing the
family court’s order regarding its decisions on custody or timesharing.
Brittany was a former schoolteacher but was unemployed and
receiving disability benefits. Her preliminary verified financial disclosure
indicated that her only source of income was $1,300.00 from disability. Brandon
was employed as an engineer for the Army Corps of Engineers, with a monthly
income of $7,343.00.
The family court held a trial on August 30, 2021, and entered its
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree on October 14, 2021. In its
decision, the family court awarded Brittany $700.00 per month in maintenance
payment from Brandon. However, it stated that it would review the maintenance
award if or when Brittany began to receive additional disability payments, returned
to either part-time or full-time employment, or met other conditions enabling her to
-2-
meet her financial needs without Brandon’s contribution. Additionally, the family
court divided the parties’ marital and non-marital property and assigned the marital
debts. On October 22, 2021, Brittany filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate,
which the family court denied. This appeal followed.
We will address further facts as they become relevant to the Opinion.
ANALYSIS
1. Division of Marital Property
Because the division of marital and non-marital property affects a
court’s analysis regarding maintenance, we will first examine Brittany’s claims
regarding the family court’s division of marital property. See Owens v. Owens,
672 S.W.2d 67, 69 (Ky. App. 1984). When the division of property is at issue, the
family court’s classification of that property as marital or non-marital is a required
threshold task. Sexton v. Sexton, 125 S.W.3d 258, 264-65 (Ky. 2004). Indeed,
Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 403.190(1) instructs the family court to first
classify each item of property as marital or non-marital and then assign each
spouse the non-marital property belonging to such spouse. Snodgrass v.
Snodgrass, 297 S.W.3d 878, 887 (Ky. App. 2009).
All property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be marital
property unless shown to fall under one of the exceptions in KRS 403.190(2).
Sexton, 125 S.W.3d at 266. In dividing marital property, the family court must
-3-
consider several factors, including the “[v]alue of the property set apart to each
spouse” and the “[e]conomic circumstances of each spouse when the division of
property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family
home or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to the spouse having
custody of any children.” KRS 403.190(1)(b) and (d). Further, KRS 403.190(1)
requires a family court to divide the marital property in “‘just proportions;’ it does
not require that the division be equal.” McGowan v. McGowan, 663 S.W.2d 219,
223 (Ky. App. 1983) (emphasis added) (citing Quiggins v. Quiggins, 637 S.W.2d
666, 669 (Ky. App. 1982)).
An appellate court reviews the family court’s distribution of marital
property under an abuse of discretion standard. Herron v. Herron, 573 S.W.2d
342, 344 (Ky. 1978). An abuse of discretion concerns “whether the trial judge’s
decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal
principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999) (citations
omitted).
In this case, the family court found that the parties owned a primary
residence in Mount Washington, Kentucky, with an estimated value of
$367,866.00. The mortgage balance as of October 2020 was $316,668.00.
Further, the parties agreed that Brandon had a non-marital interest in the residence
of $19,316.00. Thus, the equity balance less the non-marital claim equaled
-4-
$31,882.00. The family court awarded Brandon the sole ownership and possession
of the marital residence.
In this case, we do not discern any clear error or abuse of discretion
by the family court. The family court correctly restored Brandon’s non-marital
contribution of $19,316.00. However, the family court noted that while it was
awarding the primary marital asset to Brandon, he was also required to take on all
the marital debt, or approximately $67,789.00. Thus, in awarding the marital home
to Brandon, the court was looking at the total picture, including that Brandon had
sole custody of the children and would be taking on all the marital debt, including
all mortgage payments and other liabilities for the primary residence.
Indeed, the court was properly considering the “[e]conomic
circumstances of each spouse” as required under KRS 403.190(1)(d) and
addressing the fact that Brandon had carried the financial obligation of maintaining
the marital residence and providing for the parties’ children. We again note that a
family court has “wide discretion” in dividing marital property. Johnson v.
Johnson, 564 S.W.2d 221, 222 (Ky. App. 1978). Brittany has failed to show an
abuse of discretion in the court’s division of marital property.
Brittany further argues that the family court erred in failing to divide
the parties’ retirement accounts. The family court found that Brandon had
retirement accounts valued at $77,720.00 at the time of separation. Brittany had a
-5-
retirement account valued at $51,668.00 at the time of the separation.
Additionally, a significant portion of the marital debt – $31,498.00 – represented
loans from Brandon’s retirement account. The family court declined to divide the
retirement accounts and awarded each party their account.
However, we can again discern no error. The family court stated that
it considered all the information each party provided in their respective verified
financial disclosure statements and took an overall view of the parties’ marital
assets and marital debt. Because Brittany was not equally sharing the
responsibilities of raising the children, Brandon had a less flexible schedule and
fewer options for additional earnings. Additionally, much of the accumulated
marital debt was assigned to him by the court. Thus, we see no clear error or abuse
of discretion.
Additionally, Brittany argues that the family court’s findings failed to
address her allegation that Brandon had taken her engagement ring and sold it for
$2,350.00 in January 2021. However, the family court did address the ring issue in
its order regarding Brittany’s motion to alter, amend, or vacate. In that order, the
family court stated that Brittany’s trial memorandum did not include this issue, and
Brittany had presented no evidence at trial concerning the issue.
Here, the family court stated that Brittany first raised the ring issue at
a hearing in April 2021. On May 7, 2021, the family court ordered Brittany to
-6-
produce a copy of the sales receipt to Brandon’s counsel within fourteen (14) days.
There is no evidence that she did so. While Brittany cites this Court to the record
of a January 29, 2021, receipt from Genesis Diamonds for $2,350.00, she did not
provide the receipt to the family court and Brandon until February 11, 2022.
Thus, Brittany presented no evidence at the August 2021 trial concerning the
engagement ring. Accordingly, we affirm the family court as to this issue.
In conclusion, Brittany has failed to show an abuse of discretion in the
court’s division of marital property.
2. Maintenance
Brittany next argues that the family court should have calculated the
amount she was owed in maintenance using a $0 income for Brittany and
contended that she did not receive $1,300.00 per month in disability payments.
The Kentucky Supreme Court has stated that “the award of
maintenance comes within the sound discretion of the trial court . . . [.]” Powell v.
Powell, 107 S.W.3d 222, 224 (Ky. 2003) (citations omitted). Such discretion
extends to the amount and duration of maintenance as well. Weldon v. Weldon,
957 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Ky. App. 1997) (citation omitted).
To reverse the family court, “a reviewing court must find either that
the findings of fact are clearly erroneous or that the trial court has abused its
discretion.” Perrine v. Christine, 833 S.W.2d 825, 826 (Ky. 1992). A family
-7-
court’s finding of fact “is not clearly erroneous if it is supported by substantial
evidence.” Hunter v. Hunter, 127 S.W.3d 656, 659 (Ky. App. 2003) (citations
omitted). Substantial evidence “is evidence, when taken alone or in light of all the
evidence, which has sufficient probative value to induce conviction in the mind of
a reasonable person.” Id. (citations omitted).
In this case, the family court based its maintenance decision on the
information of record before the court. Indeed, in the only verified disclosure
statement she submitted to the court; Brittany listed her gross monthly income as
$1,300.00. Brittany argues that her final verified financial disclosure never stated
an income of $1,300.00. However, Brittany provides no citations to the substantial
record to indicate where her final verified disclosure statement is located. Nor
does Brittany point to any other evidence that her income was $0 other than her
counsel’s statements that Brittany had informed the family court on numerous
occasions that she had no income. Thus, the court correctly calculated the
maintenance obligation based on the record it had at hand. We affirm.
3. Other Matters
Brittany next argues that the family court “openly punished [Brittany]
for having physical and mental disabilities.” However, she points to no specific
family court ruling that inflicted “punishment” on Brittany other than that the
family court held a pre-trial hearing in her absence in October 2020. Nor does
-8-
Brittany cite any legal authority upon which this Court can make an informed
decision on her argument. Thus, we affirm.
Finally, Brittany argues that the family court abused its discretion “by
allowing personal biases and wholly unprofessional conduct to interfere with the
execution and outcome of this action.” However, Brittany again fails to point to a
specific action or ruling by the family court upon which to base her argument.
Brittany did not file any motions to disqualify the family court or opposing
counsel. Further, she again fails to cite to any legal authority to support her
position. We affirm.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Bullitt Family Court’s
decision.
ACREE, JUDGE, CONCURS.
TAYLOR, JUDGE, DISSENTS AND DOES NOT FILE SEPARATE
OPINION.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Phyllis K. Lonneman J. Scott Wantland
Elizabethtown, Kentucky Shepherdsville, Kentucky
-9-