Barber v. Bradley
| Decision Date | 15 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | 2014–SC–000424–DG |
| Citation | 505 S.W.3d 749 |
| Parties | Albert W. BARBER, III, Appellant v. Elizabeth D. BRADLEY, Appellee |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: William L. Wilson, Jr., Wilson, Hutchinson, Poteat & Littlepage, Bethany A. Breetz, Stites & Harbison, PLLC
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Steven Russell Dowell, Jackson–Dowell, PLLC
In 2010, the Daviess Circuit Court dissolved the marriage of Albert W. Barber, III and Elizabeth Barber (now Elizabeth D. Bradley), and awarded Bradley child support, reserving several other issues including maintenance and property division for later disposition. After those issues were decided in 2012, Barber appealed to the Court of Appeals, which rejected Barber's allegations of error and affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety. Subsequently, Barber sought, and this Court granted, discretionary review as to two issues. Barber contends that the trial court erred 1) by finding that the equity in the parties' residence was marital property and 2) by concluding that all the household goods and furnishings were marital property and ordering the division of those items by lot. After careful consideration of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the equity in the residence was marital property. However, the designation of all household goods and furnishings as marital property and the order to divide those items by a random drawing was an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Albert W. Barber, III and Elizabeth D. Bradley were married in August 2004. At the time of their wedding, Barber, 35, and Bradley, 34, were both practicing attorneys. After their wedding, the couple and Bradley's daughter from a prior relationship, moved into Barber's residence on Greenacre Drive in Owensboro, Kentucky. During their time on Greenacre Drive, Bradley gave birth to a second daughter.
After living at Greenacre for approximately two years, Barber and Bradley decided to buy a new house, but ultimately opted to build so as to tailor the design of a new home to fit their needs. Those needs included accommodating Bradley's partial disability due to injuries sustained in a 2002 snowmobile accident.
While planning the construction of the new marital home, Barber met with his parents Albert Barber, Jr., and Teena Barber. Barber's parents (who were divorced) decided to give their son money to enable him to build a larger home, but still have mortgage payments equivalent to what the younger couple could afford given their combined income. Barber received $100,000 from his father and $146,000 from his mother to finance the construction of the new home. The funds were given to Barber in the form of checks, each made out to Barber individually. Additionally, on the memo line of their respective checks, Barber's parents indicated that the funds were gifts or advancements on Barber's inheritance. The checks were deposited by Barber into a personal bank account, to which Bradley did not have access. Barber would later use those separate funds to pay the home builder.
Subsequently, Barber and Bradley jointly participated in the planning of the construction of the house which began in 2007. Prior to the start of the construction, Bradley expressed concern to Barber that she wanted to make sure that the home would be "half hers." She did not want to use the money from Barber's parents, preferring to build a smaller house with their own funds. The parties discussed this on several occasions, according to Bradley, with Bradley eventually telling Barber she would not live in a house that was not "half hers." According to Bradley, Barber reassured her that her name would be listed on the deed and that the house would be half hers. Accordingly, the new house was deeded jointly with the right of survivorship. The construction of the new marital residence was completed in 2008, with a total cost of $547,000. As this amount exceeded the funds transferred to Barber by his parents, the couple obtained a first and second mortgage to finance the new home. Barber and Bradley's names were each listed on the mortgages. According to Bradley, Barber agreed the house would be "half hers" in order to secure her agreement to go forward with construction and live in the house.
In May 2010, Bradley filed a petition to dissolve the marriage. Among the issues to be adjudicated by the trial court were the ownership of the marital home and the disposition of the couple's property. In July 2012, the trial court conducted a bench trial on these and other outstanding issues in the divorce.
With regard to the marital home, the parties stipulated that based on the most recent appraisal the value of the house was $480,000, a significant reduction from the total construction cost of $547,000. Additionally, after deducting the outstanding first and second mortgages, the total equity in the home was approximately $140,000.
At trial, Barber claimed that the $246,000 that he received from his parents to help pay for the marital residence was a gift made exclusively to him and therefore nonmarital property. As such, he maintained that he was entitled to the return of the $246,000 prior to the division of the marital portion of the property. In support of this argument, Barber's parents testified that their respective gifts were intended for the exclusive use of their son. Further, Barber's father, who is also an attorney, recalled that he handwrote a letter dated October 17, 2007, stating his intent that his monetary gifts were to his son and his son alone.
Bradley countered that the residence was marital property and the equity should be divided equally. In her testimony, Bradley recounted her unwillingness to use Barber's parents' money for the marital home and that eventually Barber had assured her that she would be the owner of half the house. Additionally, Bradley argued that her name being on the deed to the house, along with Barber's, demonstrated their joint ownership.
In its order, the trial court noted that Barber disputed Bradley's version of events and that he denied ever assuring Bradley of her co-ownership of the residence. However, the trial court believed Bradley's testimony and also that Barber's claims were contradicted by Bradley's name appearing with his on the deed. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that the residence was marital property and that Barber and Bradley were each entitled to one-half of the home's equity.
Also in dispute at trial was the disposition of the couple's furniture, household goods, and personal property. Prior to trial, Bradley created a list of household property to be appraised ("appraisal list"). The appraisal list documented 185 separate pieces of property, their location, and details regarding their purchase, where possible. While the list included the bulk of the couple's personal property, it did not distinguish between marital and nonmarital property.
A second list entitled "household property in dispute" ("disputed property list") was used by Barber and Bradley during the trial. This list contained approximately 120 separate pieces of property and their location at the time of trial. The lower number of items listed on the disputed property list was due to the agreement of the parties regarding the ownership of a substantial portion of the property itemized on the appraisal list. The parties also agreed as to the ownership of a number of items on the disputed property list. As such, prior to trial the ownership of a considerable portion of the couple's property was no longer in dispute.
Despite this agreement, the trial court in its ruling noted that there were several lists of personal property and household goods to be divided. The several lists the trial court was referring to were the appraisal list, the disputed property list, and Bradley's final disclosure statement. Subsequently, the trial court concluded that it was "provided with insufficient information to make a meaningful and accurate designation and division of the property on those lists." As such, the trial court authorized a process to divide the personal property by lot.
The trial court ordered that a copy of the disputed property list be cut into individual strips, with each slip identifying a single piece of personal property. Additionally, the parties were ordered to repeat the process for all other items of personal property identified in the other lists submitted by the parties (with the exception of vehicles and jewelry). Each of these strips of paper was to be folded and placed into a box. Thereafter, the winner of a coin toss would blindly select a slip from the box. The parties would then alternate until all of the property had been selected. The trial court did acknowledge that if the parties were able to identify and reach an agreement regarding a different method of dividing the property that they would be permitted to do so.
Thereafter, Barber appealed the judgment of the trial court to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the ruling of the trial court. The Court of Appeals determined that the disposition of the personal assets of the couple through the aforementioned random drawing process was a division of property in just proportions pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 403.190. Additionally, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court as to the residence, although it stated its conclusion differently. The appellate court held that Barber "gifted the $247,000 to Bradley or otherwise merged it with the marital estate."1
As this is an appeal from a bench trial, our standard of review is set forth in Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 52.01. Under CR 52.01, the trial court is required to make specific findings of fact and state separately its conclusions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellington v. Becraft
...the appellate court's role is confined to determining whether those facts support the trial judge's legal conclusion." Barber v. Bradley, 505 S.W.3d 749, 754 (Ky. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Deloney, 20 S.W.3d 471, 473-74 (Ky. 2000) ). In this review of legal conclusions, we conduct a de......
-
Normandin v. Normandin
...classification of property is a statutory conclusion of law which we review de novo.).3 Kentucky Revised Statute.4 Barber v. Bradley , 505 S.W.3d 749, 754 (Ky. 2016).5 Smith , 235 S.W.3d at 6.6 Stipp v. St. Charles , 291 S.W.3d 720, 727 (Ky. App. 2009) (reviewing maintenance); Downing v. Do......
-
Risner v. McCarty
...trust existed between the parties as Risner argued. This appeal now follows. Our standard of review is set forth in Barber v. Bradley, 505 S.W.3d 749, 754 (Ky. 2016), as follows:As this is an appeal from a bench trial, our standard of review is set forth in Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure ......
-
Simpson v. Wethington
...to factual findings, "appellate review of legal determinations and conclusions from a bench trial is de novo. " Barber v. Bradley , 505 S.W.3d 749, 754 (Ky. 2016).III. AnalysisA. The Rule Against Fraudulent Deprivation of Dower A widow4 has an absolute estate to one-half of the personalty o......