Baker v. Kuffner
| Decision Date | 13 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-CA-1247-MR |
| Parties | FLORENCE BAKER AND ERIC JUSTUS APPELLANTS v. RACHEL KUFFNER AND CASEY KUFFNER APPELLEES |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION OF MARCH 25, 2022, WITHDRAWN
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:
Florence Baker and Eric Justus appeal from the Jefferson Family Court's denial of Baker's motion for immediate possession of C.R.B. (child) from Rachel Kuffner and Casey Kuffner, who have guardianship of child through a Jefferson District Court order in In re of: C.R.B. Guardian, No. 19-P-003594.
We affirm the denial of this motion as the family court's decision was amply supported by evidence indicating it is currently in child's best interest to remain with the Kuffners and because matters related to whether the guardianship was fraudulently obtained are best addressed in the district court.
This case is a poster child for the continued problems of not dealing with all matters relative to guardianship/custody of children within the family courts. District courts are still empowered to deal with guardianship matters regarding children, while family courts deal with custody matters. This dichotomy leads to parties seeking to overturn what one court has done by filing an action in another court which can result in inconsistent rulings. In the interest of providing a complete accounting of the events regarding guardianship and custody of child, we provide a brief history of relevant proceedings in all courts.
In June 2016, child was born to married couple Lonnie Baker and Nicole Baker (collectively parents). At the time of their marriage, parents were friends with the Kuffners. Baker is Lonnie's mother and child's grandmother. Justus is Lonnie's brother and child's uncle.
In June 2017, Lonnie died in the hospital. A year later, a medical malpractice action for Lonnie's death was initiated on behalf of his estate, child and Nicole. In February 2021, one of the doctors settled for a confidential amount which was approved by the circuit court.[1]
After Lonnie's death, later in 2017, Nicole obtained a $500, 000 life insurance policy and named the Kuffners as the beneficiaries. Nicole also named Rachel Kuffner as the beneficiary of her employer provided life insurance policy and her 401(k).
On July 25, 2019, Nicole died after accidentally falling to her death while hiking.[2] This occurred while Nicole and child were on vacation in Hawaii with the Kuffners. Casey Kuffner was appointed as administrator of Nicole's estate and was subsequently substituted for Nicole as administrator of Lonnie's estate.
According to Baker's testimony, [3] she was unable to take possession of child when the Kuffners returned with child from Hawaii because Casey claimed the Kuffners had been granted custody of child from a court in Hawaii, which Baker believes is false. Baker testified she wanted to pick up child from the airport but did not attempt that given what Casey had told her. Baker also testified Casey told her that he thought he was the executor of Nicole's estate.
Baker testified she was able to see child after the Kuffners returned with her from Hawaii but believed she could not take child with her because they had custody. She testified that Rachel told her during this visit that the Kuffners were the beneficiaries of Nicole's life insurance policy.
On July 29, 2019, Rachel signed an application for appointment as guardian for minor child and this application (along with a petition for appointment) was filed the following day. The application for appointment as guardian is the only portion of the district court record that was made part of the circuit court record on appeal.
On July 31, 2019, the district court appointed the Kuffners, who are non-relatives, as temporary guardians of child. Baker and Justus allege while the district court was informed about some of child's relatives who did not want to claim guardianship of child, that the district court was not informed about their existence or Baker's interest in taking guardianship of child as is required by Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 387.025.
Baker testified she was not informed that the Kuffners had filed to be appointed as child's guardian or when there was a court date on that. Baker testified she did not find out that the Kuffners were appointed as child's guardians until she consulted with an attorney in late August of 2019. Baker testified she was unaware of a second court date on August 21, 2019, concerning guardianship.
On September 27, 2019, Baker filed a petition for sole custody of child before the family court, rather than attempting to intervene and participate in the district court guardianship action. Baker also requested temporary visitation. On October 16, 2019, the Kuffners responded and filed a counter-petition for sole custody with the family court. According to Baker, she was permitted limited supervised visitation by the Kuffners but was unhappy with this arrangement.
On February 25, 2020, again before the family court, Baker filed a motion for "immediate possession of her granddaughter" and for the first time she alleged:
[The Kuffners] obtained guardianship by misrepresenting to the Jefferson District Court that [Baker] had no objection to their guardianship request; and they simultaneously failed to disclose the child's substantial estate in their application to the Jefferson District Court, thereby perpetrating a fraud on that Court.
It is the resolution of this motion that is before us on appeal.
Also, on February 25, 2020, Justus moved to intervene in the family court action to seek either joint legal custody with Baker or sole legal custody. On March 25, 2020, the family court permitted Justus to intervene and Justus filed a petition for custody, either sole or joint with Baker. Baker filed a new petition for custody in which she continued to request sole custody.
Prior to any hearing on Baker's motion for immediate possession of child, on March 9, 2020, Baker and Justus filed a motion in the district court guardianship action, seeking to remove the Kuffners as child's guardian.
Due to COVID-19, a hearing on Baker's motion for immediate possession of child was delayed until June 3, 2020. At the hearing, the family court heard testimony from Baker, Casey, Rachel, child's therapist Leanna Gardner, and child's maternal grandmother Joyce Raymond.
On August 28, 2020, the family court's order denying the motion for immediate possession was entered. In the family court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, the family court noted evidence supporting the fact that Lonnie and Nicole were close friends with the Kuffners both before and after Lonnie's death: (1) Casey attended Lonnie's and Nicole's private wedding, signed the wedding certificate (along with Baker), and then the Kuffners later attended Lonnie's and Nicole's destination wedding (along with Baker and Justus) with Casey serving as Lonnie's best man and the Kuffners' daughter also being in the wedding; (2) Casey and Lonnie began a joint business venture together and owned property and a business together, and Jennifer Baker (Lonnie's sister) rents out one of the properties owned by Casey and Lonnie; (3) the Kuffners had Lonnie and Nicole over for dinner about three to four times per week and, after Lonnie's death, had Nicole and child over for dinner around five nights per week and the Kuffners, Nicole, and child would do weekend activities together; (4) Rachel assisted Nicole with daycare after Lonnie died by watching child full-time for four or five months and then part-time after child began attending daycare; and (5) Rachel would talk to Nicole about eight times a day. The family court also noted evidence that Baker was close to Lonnie, Nicole, and child: (1) Baker visited with child every three to four weeks since her birth, staying with Lonnie and Nicole; (2) after Lonnie's death, Justus routinely drove Baker to visit with Nicole and child and Baker had a great relationship with child and would read and play games with her.
The family court recounted the parties' concerns about who should raise child, with Baker being concerned that the Kuffners were after financial gain from Nicole's life insurance policy, and from Lonnie's and Nicole's estates, while the Kuffners believed Baker could not keep up with the physical demands of raising child or handle her other needs. However, there was absolutely no evidence in the record that Baker could not take care of child other than their testimony and supposition. The family court explained that the Kuffners believe that child is best off in their home as she is like one of their children and gets along well with their other children, while Baker believes child is best off in her care as child is Baker's only grandchild and Baker loves her as her own child. The family court also recounted lay testimony by child's therapist (who the Kuffners hired) that she believes child is well bonded with the Kuffners, child looks to them for reassurance, and the therapist believes the Kuffners are very patient and encouraging with child.
After explaining the narrow scope of the petition for immediate possession, the family court declined the motion, explaining as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial