Martin v. Martin

• Court: Supreme Court of Kentucky
• Writing for the Court: REED
• Citation: Martin v. Martin, 445 S.W.2d 702 (Ky. 1969)
• Decision Date: 10 October 1969
• Parties: Carolyn Ann MARTIN, Appellant, v. Leon M. MARTIN, Appellee.

Page 702

445 S.W.2d 702

Carolyn Ann MARTIN, Appellant, v. Leon M. MARTIN, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 10, 1969.

J. T. Hatcher, Paul M. Lewis, Hatcher & Lewis, Elizabethtown, for appellant.

Harold K. Huddleston, Huddleston & Van Zant, Elizabethtown, for appellee.

REED, Judge.

The appellant, Carolyn Ann Martin, was granted an absolute divorce from her husband, the appellee, Leon M. Martin. She was granted custody of their three children: Beverly, age 7; Pamela, age 6; and Jeffery, age 3. The trial judge awarded Carolyn: 'alimony in the sum of $500'; the further sum of $820 'as restoration of payments made by her on the real estate'; $150 a month for support of the children; and the household furniture. The trial court adjudged that Leon was the owner of the real estate held in the joint names of the parties, but impressed this property with a lien in favor of Carolyn to secure payment of the 'cost of alimony and restoration awarded her'; it was also adjudged that Leon pay an indebtedness of approximately $446 which was secured by a security agreement on the furniture awarded to Carolyn. Carolyn asserts that these allowances to her were grossly inadequate. Leon filed a cross appeal, but in his brief has now abandoned it. He contends, however, that the allowances to his wife were more than adequate, and that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. We have concluded that Carolyn is entitled to periodic alimony, under the undisputed facts in this case; therefore, we reverse that portion of the judgment which determines the amount of alimony allowable to the wife.

The parties were married in 1959. Neither of them had any estate at the time of marriage and they have not accumulated any significant estate during marriage. Carolyn has an automobile which her father gave to her and Leon's father gave him an automobile after the parties separated. No value is placed upon the furniture.

The only asset which there is any controversy is the real estate. It seems that during 1966 this couple wanted to build a home but didn't have funds for a down payment. Leon's father deeded to them, without any consideration whatever, about five acres of land so that they could obtain a loan of sufficient size to build a house and pay the construction cost. The house was constructed at a cost of $15,500 and a loan was obtained for that full amount. The balance on the loan at the time of the divorce was $16,132.66. The parties had made total payments during the life of the loan of $1,638.31, which were insufficient to cover the amount of interest accumulated during the period. The payments were supposed to be at the rate of $100 per month and Carolyn testified that she had made approximately one-half of the payments on the house. She is jointly obligated with Leon on this note and mortgage.

Carolyn introduced a properly qualified witness who testified that the fair market value of the house itself was $15,200 and that the fair market value of the land was $5,000. There actually appears to be no dispute concerning this value, and we accept as accurate the amount of $20,200 ad representing the fair market value of the improved real property.

It is also undisputed that Carolyn, from her own funds, paid $500 on a debt created by Leon when it became necessary for him to refund that amount to a previous employer of his.

Carolyn works as a stenographer in a telephone office and has a take-home pay of $68 per week. At the time of the rendition of the judgment, Leon was unemployed and had been for several weeks while under treatment for alcoholism. Prior to this last period of unemployment, he had worked at a steel company and received a wage of approximately $80 per week. These reduced earnings were attributable to...