Penrod v. Penrod
| Decision Date | 05 February 1971 |
| Citation | 463 S.W.2d 309 |
| Parties | Yvonne M. PENROD, Appellant, v. Robert Eugene PENROD, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Edward T. Ewen, Jr., Louisville, for appellant.
Scott Miller, Jr., Louisville, for appellee.
Appellant, Yvonne M. Penrod, plaintiff in the trial court, appeals from a judgment which allowed her lump-sum but no periodic alimony. We reverse and remand for proceedings hereinafter outlined.
The parties were married in 1953 when appellant was 18 and appellee was 19 years of age. They were penniless. With substantial help from appellant's grandmother, the parties wisely purchased real estate south of the city of Louisville on which appellee, with unusual sagacity and business acumen, constructed a shopping center. Appellant contributed substantially to the development of the shopping center while keeping the home and caring for two adopted children. The parties were unfortunate in that their two natural born children died shortly after birth.
After starting from scratch, the parties parlayed a small amount of money, their credit and their ingenuity into a gross estate found by the chancellor to be $230,690.41 with liabilities of $112,199.72, leaving them a net estate of $118,490.69.
The chancellor adjudged appellant thirty percent of this net estate, or $35,547.21. As a credit on this allowance to appellant, the judgment gave her a home on Cooper Chapel Road valued at $20,000 and an automobile valued at $1,800. Appellant was awarded the custody of the the two children and $40 per week for their support. She also recovered her costs and attorney fees.
Appellee was adjudged the entire shopping center and adjacent land.
Appellant's main argument is that she is entitled to the shopping center, and failing this, she is entitled to a greater part of the net estate and to future periodic alimony.
The tangled mess left by a broken marriage presents difficult problems for the courts, both at the trial court and appellate court level. The facts and circumstances of each case are usually so varied that it is difficult to apply fixed rules or guidelines. However, with the benefit of more than a century of study and experience by courts of equity and with some statutory framework, we have recently attempted to 'correct, clarify, and restate the law in this jurisdiction applicable to division of property and alimony.' Colley v. Colley, Ky., 460 S.W.2d 821.
The appellant was granted a divorce December 1, 1969, on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, consisting of what appellant termed 'neglect.' The judgment appealed from was entered February 4, 1970.
We shall endeavor to state the important facts that bear upon the questions presented without going into details of the various ramifications of this tragic marriage.
Facts that relate to the settlement of property rights may be first catalogued. It may be safely and fairly stated that both parties contributed to the accumulation of the net estate. Appellant's contribution took the form of keeping the home and family in addition to keeping records and some supervision of construction of the shopping center. Appellee provided the engineering and architectural expertise as well as the contribution of his outside...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Penrod v. Penrod
...accumulated during their marriage, and, after so doing, determine whether appellant is entitled to periodic alimony.' Penrod v. Penrod, Ky., 463 S.W.2d 309 (1971). The trial court, using the guidelines of Colley, entered a second or supplemental judgment awarding Yvonne, as a division of pr......