Shofner v. Shofner

• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: LATIMER, Justice.
• Citation: Shofner v. Shofner, 310 Ky. 869, 222 S.W.2d 933 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949)
• Decision Date: 03 June 1949
• Parties: SHOFNER v. SHOFNER.

222 S.W.2d 933

310 Ky. 869

SHOFNER v. SHOFNER.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

June 3, 1949

Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1949.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, First Division; Lawrence F. Speckman, Judge.

Suit by Mary E. Shofner against Lonnie R. Shofner for divorce on ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, wherein defendant counterclaimed for divorce on the same grounds. From a judgment awarding divorce to each party and directing a division of property, the defendant appeals, on the ground that the amount awarded wife was inequitable.

Affirmed.

Finley F. Gibson, Jr., Louisville, for appellant.

James Walter Clements, Louisville, for appellee.

LATIMER Justice.

Appellee plaintiff below, sought a divorce from appellant on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. By counterclaim appellant sought divorce on same grounds. Each asked for custody and control of their two infant children.

In his report the Commissioner apparently concluded that both parties were at fault and recommended that each be granted an absolute divorce from the other. Pursuant to this recommendation, the court adjudged 'that the Plaintiff Mary E. Shofner, be and she is hereby divorced from the bonds of matrimony with the Defendant, Lonnie R. Shofner, and that Lonnie R. Shofner is hereby divorced from the bonds of matrimony with Mary E. Shofner.' Plaintiff was permitted to select from their furniture such as was needed for her natural comfort. The automobile mentioned in the action was to be the sole property of the plaintiff. It was further ordered that she recover of the defendant the sum of $2600 as lump sum alimony. She was directed to release her right title, and interest in and to the real property jointly owned by the parties situated at 1807 Gregg Avenue and the defendant was required to pay the plaintiff's attorney fee of $300.

The defendant prosecutes this appeal insisting that the amount allowed is entirely out of proportion to the property owned by him, and is so large as to render it entirely inequitable.

The record is voluminous. We do not deem it necessary to reiterate here the charges and counter-charges, criminations and recriminations made by the parties herein. Their infant daughters have married since this suit was filed. It might be added that these daughters have been estranged, one taking the part of the father and the other the part of the mother. This is another of those...