Bailey v. Bailey
399 S.W.3d 797
Ky. Ct. App.2013Background
- Buddy and Linda Bailey married in 1974; Buddy accrued a substantial Alcoa retirement pension, Linda was primarily a homemaker.
- After separation, Buddy claimed short-term disability; dissolution petition filed March 22, 2004; mediation produced a settlement and a temporary order requiring disclosure of retirement information.
- December 10, 2004 entered a limited decree reserving property issues; over years the court resolved property and debt matters piecemeal, including a 2006 judgment for Linda related to unreturned personal property.
- November 3, 2006 Buddy’s retirement was converted to a disability pension; Linda claimed she had not received the applicable retirement policy.
- June 2011 the court ruled Buddy’s retirement pension was not marital property; Linda timely moved to alter, amend, or vacate; deposition and policy documents were produced in mid-2011.
- January 5, 2012 order granted Linda a QDRO for one-half of benefits accrued 1976–2004; Buddy moved to alter, amend, or vacate on January 17, 2012; February 20, 2012 order denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CR 59.05 relief proper to set aside order | Buddy contends trial court erred in granting CR 59.05 relief to set aside the 2011 order. | Linda argues the grounds for relief were met due to discovered information and misclassification of assets. | No abuse; relief proper; affirmed. |
| Holman control on property classification | Holman controls and disability benefits are not marital property. | Holman is distinguishable; disability benefits may be reclassified to marital property at 62. | Holman distinguished; disability benefits reclassified; QDRO affirmed. |
| QDRO entitlement for Linda | Linda is entitled to a share of Buddy’s pension accrued during marriage. | Dispute over division of disability/pension; prior orders insufficient. | Affirmed entry of QDRO allocating Linda one-half of benefits accrued 1976–2004. |
| Attorneys' fees | Buddy sought fees for contempt-related proceedings. | Court discretionary; should award fees if appropriate. | No abuse; trial court correctly denied attorney’s fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hadley v. Citizen Deposit Bank, 186 S.W.3d 754 (Ky.App.2005) (waiver for failure to cite authority on appeal)
- Pierson v. Coffey, 706 S.W.2d 409 (Ky.App.1986) (no authority cited = waiver considerations)
- Gullion v. Gullion, 163 S.W.3d 888 (Ky.2005) (CR 59.05 grounds limited to four categories)
- Holman v. Holman, 84 S.W.3d 903 (Ky.2002) (disability vs. marital property; Holman distinguished)
- Tucker v. Hill, 763 S.W.2d 144 (Ky.App.1988) (discretion in awarding attorney’s fees)
- Poe v. Poe, 711 S.W.2d 849 (Ky.App.1986) (financial resources considered in fees decisions)