Anderson v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 22 September 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2010–SC–000646–DGE.,2010–SC–000646–DGE.
• Citation: 350 S.W.3d 453
• Parties: Suzanne ANDERSON, Appellant,v.Joseph JOHNSON, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

350 S.W.3d 453

Suzanne ANDERSON, Appellant,

v.Joseph JOHNSON, Appellee.

No. 2010–SC–000646–DGE.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Sept. 22, 2011.

William David Tingley, Fore, Miller & Schwartz, Louisville, KY, Counsel for appellant.Max Harding Comley, Bullock & Coffman LLP, Frankfort, KY, Counsel for appellee.Opinion of the Court by Justice NOBLE.

Appellant, Suzanne Anderson, has asked this Court to reverse the Court of Appeals' opinion affirming the Franklin Circuit Family Court's order denying her motion for a change in timesharing of the parties' minor child to allow her to relocate with the child. As grounds, Appellant has argued that the family court's order cannot stand because no findings of fact were made. In response, Appellee, Joseph Johnson, asserts that no findings of fact are required on a motion pursuant to CR 52.01 because he only filed a motion versus an action, and that Appellant has failed to preserve any issues for appeal. This Court holds that in domestic relations cases, post-decree motions concerning visitation and timesharing modifications are “actions tried upon the facts without a jury,” CR 52.01, which require specific findings of fact and separate conclusions of law, followed by an appropriate judgment. Further, due to the intent of CR 52 and its language, Appellant is properly before the Court.

I. Background

The parties were divorced in 2002, having one child born during the marriage. The record is not clear how they specifically conducted timesharing until 2007, when they filed a joint motion asking the family court to enter an order awarding joint custody of their daughter. The order entered by the court granting joint custody further stated that “[t]imesharing with the child will be on an equal time basis as agreed by the parties.” Presumably, this occurred until April 6, 2009, when Appellant filed a motion to modify the timesharing schedule to allow her to move with the child to Paducah, Kentucky, where she would reside with her fiancé. The schedule she proposed necessarily reduced Appellee's time spent with his child due to the relocation.

Appellee did not agree, and an extensive hearing was conducted with both parties having several witnesses on May 4, 2009. The family court did not make specific findings of fact with separate conclusions of law, but only found “that it is not in the best interest of [the child] to relocate to Paducah, Kentucky.” The court then denied the motion to modify timesharing.

Appellant appealed, asking only that the case be remanded for specific findings of fact. The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court (with a thoughtful dissent by Chief Judge Taylor), holding that findings of fact were not necessary when the court denied a motion, and relying on Burnett v. Burnett, 516 S.W.2d 330 (Ky.1974). This Court accepted review to examine how these procedural aspects affect difficult post-divorce decree issues such as relocation timesharing.

II. Analysis

First, for clarity's sake, this Court must establish the narrow scope of what is actually on review in this case. This case is about a request for modification, which necessarily requires that there be a pre-existing order. Also, this case concerns only “actions tried upon the facts without a jury,” meaning actions in which any factual findings must be made by the court, unlike trials where the jury is the finder of fact.

In determining the meanings of the terms “action” and “motion” in CR 52, the first thought that comes to mind is the familiar saying “A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.” This chestnut aptly illustrates the circumstances when a hearing involving proof, witnesses, and argument is held by a court on a motion for modification of timesharing.¹ All family court cases are heard by a judge only, similarly to what occurs in other non-jury civil trials. The judge is the finder of fact, the concluder on what law applies, and the giver of an order. In contrast, in jury trials, the jury determines the facts, applies the law given by the judge, and reaches a verdict.

On motions to modify timesharing, the judge has several factors to consider in making the determination of what the best interests of a child are, which are partially listed in KRS 403.270, but include all relevant facts. The basis for a modification decision is thus fact-driven rather than law-driven, because the legal standard is whether the relocation is in the best interests of the child, which is stated plainly in the statute. To review the judge's decision on appeal, it is important to know what facts the judge relied on in order to determine whether he has made a mistake of fact, or to even determine if he is right at law, but for the wrong facts. If a judge must choose between facts, it is clearly relevant which facts supported his opinion.

Additionally, in Pennington v. Marcum, 266 S.W.3d 759 (Ky.2008), this Court noted that whether an order of the court is final and appealable is important in determining which standard to apply on modification of custody because of the limitations placed on modification in KRS 403.340. Finality is also important when looking at a post-decree modification of timesharing because KRS 403.320 only allows for modification of a final order. Timesharing that has been set by the court in an order on post-decree modification is final and appealable, partly because it is a modification of an already entered final order, and also because KRS 403.320(3) specifically allows a court to modify a final order “ whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child.” (Emphasis added.) ² Thus a visitation order modifying a final order becomes the new final order and is subject to appeal.

Further, by saying that a timesharing modification ³ can be done “whenever” it is in the best interests of the child to do so, the legislature effectively gave the family court continuing jurisdiction to hear such motions until the child reaches the age of majority or is emancipated. Motions to modify timesharing are motions to reopen the final divorce decree to the extent stated in the motion and require payment of the reopening fee. See FCRPP 3(6). The Court is clearly obligated to determine questions of law and fact in the original custody proceeding. See KRS 403.310. Part of that proceeding is granting visitation or time sharing. Thus motions for modification are not new actions and the case number remains the same. And by virtue of being brought post-decree, they are not motions being made in a pending action.

These “motions” differ dramatically from the motions that are related to discovery, or any motion that requires only a conclusion of law, which are the kinds of motions being referenced in the last sentence of CR 52.01. ⁴ Even though that part of the rule does include the language “or any other motion,” the final language “except as provided in CR 41.02” further illustrates that the intent of CR 52.01 is to direct judges in cases tried by the court without a jury to make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law whenever they render a judgment on the merits. See CR 41.02(2). ⁵ And certainly, a determination regarding modification of custody is a judgment on the merits.

Consequently, though named a “motion,” a motion for modification is actually a vehicle for the reopening and rehearing on some part of a final order, which asks for adjudication on the merits presented at a required hearing. As such, family courts must make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and must enter the appropriate order of judgment when hearing modification motions.

Here, the family court judge conducted a lengthy hearing and concluded that moving to Paducah was not in the best interest of the child. No doubt he could have stated several factual reasons to support his conclusion that the move was not in the child's best interest. But he did not, in clear violation of the command in CR 52.01. This, however, brings up Appellee's argument that Appellant failed to properly preserve the failure to make findings as required by CR 52.04.

CR 52.04 states that a final judgment “shall not be reversed or remanded” because the trial court did not make “a finding of fact on an issue essential to the judgment” unless that omission has been brought to the judge's attention by a written request for that finding or by a motion filed within ten days after entry of the judgment.⁶ However, this Court has previously addressed a similar situation to this case in Hollon v. Hollon, 623 S.W.2d 898 (Ky.1981). There, the trial court merely stated that there was marital property, proceeded to state how he was dividing it, and awarded maintenance. Id. at 899. The Court found that KRS 403.190, the property division statute, and KRS 403.200, the maintenance statute, required the trial court to make more findings than merely stating his conclusions of law, and allowed the appeal even though the Appellants had failed to bring this lack to the trial court's attention pursuant to CR 52.04. Id. Referring to CR 1, which states the Rules of Civil Procedure are secondary to procedural rules in statutes, the Court found that the requirements of KRS 403.190 setting forth specific, necessary factors to “consider” prevailed over CR 52. Id. The Court concluded: “Thus, the failure of the parties to request complete findings of fact is not fatal to their appeals because the trial judge did not comply with the procedural requirements of this statutory proceeding.” Id.

Arguably, the same analysis applies to considerations of the “best interests” of a child under KRS 403.270. But there is one major problem with the holding in Hollon. The statute construed in that simply does not require a trial court to make such findings—only that it “consider” a non-exhaustive list of factors in reaching its ultimate conclusions of law. See KRS 403.190 & .200 No factual findings are required under the statute. Instead, the findings requirement comes...