Beets v. Beets

• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: GOODWINE, JUDGE
• Docket Number: 2022-CA-0337-MR,2022-CA-0344-MR
• Decision Date: 01 December 2023
• Citation: Beets v. Beets, 2022-CA-0337-MR, 2022-CA-0344-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Dec 01, 2023)
• Parties: JAMES ANDREW BEETS APPELLANT v. KIRA ELIZABETH BEETS APPELLEE AND KIRA ELIZABETH BEETS CROSS-APPELLANT v. JAMES ANDREW BEETS CROSS-APPELLEE

1

JAMES ANDREW BEETS APPELLANT v. KIRA ELIZABETH BEETS APPELLEE AND KIRA ELIZABETH BEETS CROSS-APPELLANT v. JAMES ANDREW BEETS CROSS-APPELLEE

Nos. 2022-CA-0337-MR, 2022-CA-0344-MR

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

December 1, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CROSS-APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE ANGELA JOHNSON, JUDGE ACTION NO. 18-CI-500014

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT/ CROSS-APPELLEE: LOUIS I. WATERMAN SPENCER J BROOKS PROSPECT, KENTUCKY

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE/ CROSS-APPELLANT: KATIE M. BROPHY LOUISVILLE KENTUCKY

BEFORE: DIXON, ^[1] GOODWINE, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

OPINION

GOODWINE, JUDGE

James Andrew Beets ("Andie") appeals orders of the Jefferson Circuit Court, Family Division entered on November 15, 2019, February 24, 2022, November 2, 2020, January 12, 2021, and August 30, 2021, and March 11, 2022. Kira Elizabeth Beets ("Kira") cross-appeals the August 30, 2021 and March 11, 2022 orders. After careful review, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The parties were married on January 20, 2007. They are parents to two minor children. Andie petitioned for the dissolution of the marriage on January 3, 2018. Throughout the marriage, Andie was the higher-earning spouse and is employed full-time as a lead heating, ventilation, and air conditioning installer for Kentuckiana Comfort Center. Although Kira did not work when the parties' children were younger, she is now employed full-time as the preschool director at Saint Andrews Academy.

Kira moved for temporary child support. Based on the Kentucky child support guidelines, the family court set Andie's temporary child support obligation at $755.56 per month. The court also entered a status quo order which required the parties to each pay one-half of the mortgage payment on the marital home and the electric, water, and trash bills associated with the property.

Kira later requested temporary maintenance and attorney fees. After a hearing, the court awarded Kira $850 per month in temporary maintenance. The court found, based on the parties' recent tax return, that Andie earned $66,505.50 and Kira earned $31,380.50. In considering the requirements of KRS^[2] 403.200, the court found

[Kira] lacks the sufficient resources to provide for her reasonable needs. [Kira] is employed and working fulltime but makes less than half of [Andie's] income. [Kira] has had to take on new debt, and [Andie] has deprived [Kira] of assets, such as failing to provide her a portion of the sales from various vehicles the parties' owned. Though [Andie] did use $5,000 of those proceeds to purchase the defective BMW, the [c]ourt believes the proceeds of the sale for the items exceeded $5,000 and [Kira] has not received any share of those funds. [Kira] is also maintaining old debt that the parties[] incurred, such as the credit cards that [Andie] removed from his name. Since [Andie] has removed [Kira] from dental and vision insurance, she is unable to afford the cost for herself and is currently without that insurance. For these reasons, the [c]ourt does not believe [Kira] can meet her reasonable needs.

[Kira] is currently employed and though she is not employed in a lucrative field, there has been no evidence presented to doubt that the income [Kira] is earning through her employment is reasonable given [her] education, training, and the field. [Kira's] income is insufficient to provide for her reasonable needs.

It is apparent that she is not attempting to live beyond the standard of living the parties enjoyed during the marriage. [Kira] has been attempting to maintain the standard of living for her and the parties' children, though [Andie] has attempted to eschew financial responsibility at every turn.

[Andie] is employed and earns about $66,505 per year and also collects money from a rental property. [Andie] has deprived [Kira] of items the [parties] possessed during the marriage and failed to even discuss with her the proceeds of the sale. [Andie] has slighted [Kira] by providing her with an unreliable vehicle, in which she was to transport herself and their children. [Andie] has even removed his name from joint debts, leaving [Kira] financially responsible.

[Andie] claims to be in $12,000 of debt to his brother but is earning approximately $5,542 per month with $1,300 in monthly bills, $755.56 monthly child support obligation, $413 per month for mortgage payments, should be able to comfortably support himself and meet any monthly obligations. The [c]ourt does not believe that with the facts presented at the hearing that [Andie] is nearly as destitute as he is making himself out to be.

[Kira's] request of $850 per month appears to be reasonable to this [c]ourt given her financial resources, her reasonable needs, [Andie's] financial resources, and his ability to meet tat monthly obligation.

Record ("R.") at 266-68.

The family court also awarded Kira $5,000 of the $10,000 in attorney fees she requested. The court considered both parties' financial resources in making this award. The court characterized this case as "highly litigious" with many issues relating to Andie's failure to pay his ordered obligations and Kira's inability to meet her own financial obligations. Id. at 269.

A final hearing was held on June 24, 2021. In its August 30, 2021 order, as amended by its March 11, 2022 order on the parties' post-judgment motions, the family court finally resolved all remaining issues between the parties.^[3]In relevant part, the court awarded Kira permanent maintenance of $400 per month for two years or until either party died, Kira married, or she cohabitated with a paramour. The court also incorporated Andie's child support and maintenance arrearages, totaling $10,642.03, into the final order.

The court awarded Kira $6,000 of the more than $44,000 she requested in attorney fees. After "tediously review[ing]" the fees she requested, the court disagreed with Kira's contention that she would have expended only $2,000 on this litigation but for Andie's conduct. R. at 879-80. The court noted that Kira would have "a significant amount of financial resources" once its orders on the division of marital property went into effect. It also found Andie had already been ordered to pay the costs of the children's guardian ad litem ("GAL"), mediation, and his share to maintain the status quo of the marriage. Id. at 880.

However, the court also noted that Andie's refusal to pay his monetary obligations during the pendency of the divorce had required additional litigation.

When dividing the parties' debts, the court found the following credit card balances marital in nature: (1) $2,527 on a Bank of America card in Andie's name; (2) $4,360 on a Citibank card in Andie's name; (3) $4,223 on a Bank of America card in Kira's name; and (4) $6,222 on a Discover card in Kira's name. The court assigned Andie the balances on the accounts in his name and equally divided the balances on the accounts in Kira's name. The court also assigned the $2,749 balance on a Capital One account in Kira's name to her because she incurred the debt after the parties separated.

The court also divided the real property owned by the parties. Relevant to this appeal, the court ordered the property at 3721 Center Street to be sold and for the proceeds to be divided equally. The court rejected Andie's claim that the house was his nonmarital property because it was a gift to him alone from his sister and brother-in-law. The court found "the 'purchase cost' of this property bought during the marriage from [Andie's] sister and brother-in-law, was the payment of then existing property tax liens, which liens were paid from marital funds during the parties' marriage and as a result this property is marital." Id. at 1021-22. The court awarded the property at 3115 Hartlage Court to Andie and ordered him to refinance the home to remove Kira from the mortgage and to pay her $64,000, one-half of the value of the property.

This appeal and cross-appeal follow.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In a dissolution proceeding, division of property consists of a three-step process: (1) the court classifies each piece of property as either marital or nonmarital; (2) the court then assigns each party his or her nonmarital property; and (3) finally, the court equitably divides the marital property between the parties. Smith v. Smith, 235 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Ky. App. 2006) (footnotes omitted). The determination of whether the property is marital or nonmarital in nature is reviewed in two tiers. Id. at 6. We review a family court's factual findings for clear error but review the ultimate determination of the nature of the property de novo. Id. We review the court's division of marital property and debt for abuse of discretion. Id.; Maclean v. Middleton, 419 S.W.3d 755 773 (Ky. App. 2014) (citation omitted).

Awards of maintenance are within the "sound and broad discretion" of the family court. Naramore v. Naramore, 611 S.W.3d 281, 286 (Ky. App. 2020) (citation omitted). Where the award is supported by substantial evidence, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the family court. Bickel v. Bickel, 95 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Ky. App. 2002) (footnote omitted). We also review a family court's award of attorney fees under KRS 403.220 for abuse of discretion. Bootes v. Bootes, 470 S.W.3d 351, 356 (Ky. App. 2015) (citation omitted).

We will not disturb findings of fact which are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336, 354 (Ky. 2003) (footnote omitted).

Regardless of conflicting evidence, the weight of the evidence, or the fact that the reviewing court would have reached a contrary finding, due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses because judging the credibility of witnesses and weighing

...