McQueen v. McQueen

• Court: Supreme Court of Kentucky
• Writing for the Court: MOREMEN
• Citation: McQueen v. McQueen, 294 S.W.2d 75 (Ky. 1956)
• Decision Date: 05 October 1956
• Parties: Frances McQUEEN, Appellant, v. Elbert McQUEEN, Appellee.

Page 75

294 S.W.2d 75

Frances McQUEEN, Appellant, v. Elbert McQUEEN, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 5, 1956.

Shumate & Shumate, Richmond, for appellant.

John Little, McKee, for appellee.

MOREMEN, Judge.

Appellee, Elbert McQueen, instituted suit for divorce against his wife, appellant, Frances McQueen, in which he alleged lewd and lascivious behavior under KRS 403.020, and asked (1) absolute divorce; (2) restoration of real property that was held jointly by him and his wife; and (3) custody of three infant children.

The trial court granted the husband an absolute divorce and awarded to him custody of the three children. The judgment did not contain an order restoring the property not disposed of at the commencement of the action with either party had obtained from the other by reason of marriage, as required by KRS 403.065.

On this appeal it is urged that the judgment should be reversed because (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge that appellant was guilty of such lewd and lascivious conduct as to prove her unchaste, and she is entitled to the custody and control of the infant children; (2) she worked in the fields and helped to raise tobacco crops, the proceeds of which helped to pay for the farm, and she should be allowed alimony sufficient to compensate for these contributions, and (3) the judgment is erroneous because it does not provide for the visitation of the children. However, by addendum, counsel for appellant informs us that the judgment has been modified to the extent that visitation rights are conferred on the appellant and that she has been granted custody and control of the infant children during part of the vacation time from school.

We have many times held that this court has no power to reverse a divorce decree but it may review evidence to determine whether the judgment is correct in other respects. KRS 21.060; Smith...