Roberts v. Roberts

• Court: Supreme Court of Kentucky
• Writing for the Court: CAMMACK
• Citation: Roberts v. Roberts, 268 S.W.2d 423 (Ky. 1954)
• Decision Date: 14 May 1954
• Parties: ROBERTS v. ROBERTS.

Page 423

268 S.W.2d 423

ROBERTS v. ROBERTS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 14, 1954.

V. R. Bentley, Pikeville, for appellant.

Francis M. Burke and Sidney Trivette Pikewille, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Justice.

Mrs. Flottie Roberts, who was granted a divorce from Elbert Roberts, is appealing from that part of the judgment which determined the property rights of the parties.

The Robertses were married in 1921. They had six children. Their only dependent at the time of the filing of the divorce proceeding by the husband was Mary Ruth Roberts, who was 17 years of age. At the time of their marriage neither party had any property or money, but over the 31 years of their marriage they accumulated a sizeable amount of property and money, the combined total being approximately $52,000. In her answer and counterclaim Mrs. Roberts asked for an absolute divorce; the household furniture; one-half of all the property; and $15,000 in alimony. The court found the value of the six parcels of real estate to be $23,800 and that of the personal property, consisting of a restaurant business, cash, eight U. S. Government bonds, vehicles and household furniture, to be $28,100, making a total of $51,900.

The court gave Mrs. Roberts one-half interest in one $750 bond, purchased jointly, plus accrued interest thereon; $500 for a fee for her attorney; $25 per month for the support and maintenance of Mary Ruth Roberts and medical expenses not to exceed $300 for any one year until she reaches the age of 21, or ceases to be a dependent; $175 for accrued support and maintenance; $4,000 in cash as alimony and maintenance; a Pontiac automobile for Mary Ruth Roberts; $50 per month alimony; $50 for a former attorney's fee; a brick home with all the furniture therein; and 100 acres of land for her use during her lifetime. All the remainder of the property was awarded the appellee.

The appellant...