Etscorn v. Etscorn
| Decision Date | 12 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2017-CA-001637-MR,2017-CA-001637-MR |
| Parties | SUZANNE ETSCORN APPELLANT v. WILLIAM ETSCORN APPELLEE |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT
HONORABLE DEANA MCDONALD, JUDGE
OPINIONAFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: NICKELL AND TAYLOR, JUDGES; HENRY, SPECIAL JUDGE.1
NICKELL, JUDGE: In this dissolution of marriage action, Suzanne Etscorn ("Susie") has appealed from the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court, Family Division, entered on June 20, 2017. Thejudgment divided the marital estate between Susie and her ex-husband, William Etscorn ("Billy"), awarded Susie maintenance for five years, and denied her request for attorney fees. Susie challenges the trial court's scheduling order for the final hearing as being unreasonable. She further contends the trial court failed to make necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law resulting in improper rulings. Following a careful review, we discern no error and affirm.
Billy and Susie were married on July 24, 1985. Each had children from prior marriages; no children were born of the union. The parties enjoyed great financial success during coverture. However, the marital bark foundered in a sea of discontent. Unfortunate difficulties in the personal relationship led to Susie filing for divorce in 2011. A lengthy and contentious period of litigation ensued, centered primarily on division of the marital estate. A proper understanding of the issues presently before this Court requires an abbreviated recitation of the complex historical facts and procedural history which precipitated this appeal.
Prior to the marriage, Billy had acquired, by gift or purchase, business ventures started by his father, and began his operations as a wholly owned entity known as Bill Etscorn, Inc. The primary business, an automotive body repair shop, was quite successful and expanded greatly during the marriage. In 1995, Billy began a series of transfers of ownership in this corporation to his three sons who had come to work in the body shop, resulting in each child holding a fifteen-percent interest and Billy retaining fifty-five percent ownership. That same year, Billy partnered in the creation of C&E Properties, LLC, a commercial real estate holding company, and would eventually come to own the entire company after buying out his partner's interest. The following year, in partnership with other investors, Billy began TBP Properties, LLC, another commercial real estate holding company. The portfolio of commercial real estate holdings would prove very profitable. Billy also partnered in a landscaping business, Professional Prune and Mulch ("PPM"). In 1997, Billy partnered with his sons2 to start another successful commercial real estate holding company, Bill Etscorn and Sons, Inc.3 By 2000, Billy had ceased nearly all day-to-day operation of the body shop, passing the reins to his sons. His primary focus became management of the various commercial properties owned by not only his own business entities, but also those owned by his sons. He was paid a substantial salary for serving in this capacity.
Around that same time, Billy started work on a business succession and estate plan to transfer his interests to his three sons. To accomplish this task, Billy formed yet another corporate entity, My Three Suns, LLC. Over the courseof 2001, Billy executed documents transferring all ownership interests in Bill Etscorn, Inc., and Bill Etscorn and Sons, LLC—including the various business and property holdings of each entity—to My Three Suns, LLC. Susie joined in executing the transfer documents to convey any interest she had in the businesses and accompanying assets. The estate plan was completed later that year when ninety-seven percent of the shares of My Three Suns, LLC, were transferred to the three boys, leaving Billy a three-percent interest. Billy and Susie executed and filed gift tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service related to the transferred assets.
Susie would later claim she was unaware of the estate plan and its consequences. However, evidence was produced during trial revealing Susie, then contemplating divorce, met with an attorney in 2001 and discussed the estate plan, its effect on the marital estate and division of the parties' assets in the event the marriage was dissolved. Documents from those meetings showed Susie was aware of the transfers of business interests and assets to Billy's sons. Ultimately, Susie decided against filing a divorce action at that time and remained in the marriage, reaping the financial benefits of the estate plan. Although relieved of the stresses of the day-to-day operation of the multiple business entities, Billy continued to earn a healthy salary which enabled the parties to maintain their very comfortable lifestyle.
Nearly a decade later, Susie filed for divorce in 2011 and a protracted period of litigation ensued.4 While the matter was pending, many of the parties' assets were liquidated to satisfy their financial obligations and fund the litigation, greatly reducing the value of the marital estate subject to division. The parties were divorced by limited decree on July 22, 2016. However, disagreements over financial matters and property division lingered which were not resolved until the trial court convened a final hearing and subsequently entered its lengthy and detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law on June 20, 2017. This appeal followed.
Susie raises three allegations of error in seeking reversal. First, she contends the trial court set arbitrary and unreasonable limitations on the time permitted for the final hearing, depriving her of an adequate opportunity to present her case. Next, Susie asserts the trial court failed to make necessary findings offact and conclusions of law, the findings it did make were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and its legal conclusions did not properly take controlling precedents into consideration. Finally, she argues the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were "utterly deficient," thereby adversely impacting resolution of her claim of dissipation of the marital estate, the maintenance award, and her request for attorneys' fees. Having reviewed the voluminous5 and prolix evidence—much of it conflicting, repetitive, and indefinite—we discern no error and affirm.
First, Susie argues the trial court's scheduling orders related to the final hearing were arbitrary, unfair, and unreasonable, resulting in a constitutionally defective trial which violated her due process rights. She asserts the extreme time limitations forced her to present "almost the entirety" of her case by deposition while Billy was able to put on his entire case with live witnesses. Susie further contends the scheduling order caused her to truncate her expert proof and prevented her from adequately cross-examining witnesses or offering proper rebuttal testimony. We disagree.
On July 23, 2014, the trial court scheduled a two-day trial to commence in October 2014. Due to the number of unresolved pretrial issues andthe impending retirement of the presiding judge, trial was continued indefinitely. By order entered in January 2015, the trial court scheduled two, twelve-hour days with the time to be divided equally between Billy and Susie; trial was to commence on October 21, 2015. Susie subsequently requested and was granted a continuance; trial was rescheduled to occur on May 31 and June 1, 2016. Approximately two months prior to the trial date, Susie moved the trial court for leave to take testimony in advance of the scheduled trial, requested an "individualized assessment of the time required for each party to properly present their respective cases," or alternatively to again continue the trial to a later date. In essence, over twenty months after the trial court first entered a trial order notifying the parties trial would be conducted on two days, Susie's motion sought to expand the allotted time for presentation of her case. The trial court denied the motion and trial commenced as scheduled.
On the first day of trial, the trial court informed the parties it had thoroughly reviewed all the deposition testimony which had been tendered and would not charge that time against either party. In the trial court's estimation, nearly six hours had been spent reviewing that portion of testimony. Near the close of the second day of trial, it became apparent to the parties and the trial court more time would be necessary to complete presentation of proof. An additional twelve hours of testimony was taken over two subsequent dates for a total of nearly36 hours of trial time. Susie now contends the trial court's time management orders rendered the entire trial unfair and constitutionally defective.
Court time is a valuable and limited resource. Thus, the trial court, not the litigants, controls the docket. Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 237 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Ky. App. 2007). A trial court has the inherent power "to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Rehm v. Clayton, 132 S.W.3d 864, 869 (Ky. 2004) (quoting Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 166, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936)). A trial court clearly has the power to impose reasonable time limits on the trial of actions before it in the exercise of its reasonable discretion. "[H]ow this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Id. (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 245-55, 57 S.Ct. at 166). We will not disturb the court's decision as long as trial time limits are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.
"The trial court 'is vested with a large discretion in the conduct of the trial of causes and an appellate court will not interpose to control the exercise of such discretion by a court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial