Barber v. Bradley
2016 Ky. LEXIS 632
| Ky. | 2016Background
- Albert Barber III and Elizabeth Bradley married in 2004, built a marital house in 2007–08; total cost ~$547,000, appraised value later $480,000 and net equity ≈ $140,000.
- Barber received $246,000 from his parents (checks made to him, memoed as gifts/advances on inheritance) and deposited to his personal account; he used those funds to help finance construction.
- Bradley testified Barber repeatedly promised the house would be “half hers” and her name was placed on the deed as joint tenants with right of survivorship; Barber denied promising ownership but signed the deed.
- Divorce filed 2010; bench trial on remaining issues held July 2012; trial court found the house equity marital and split it 50/50, but ruled all household goods and furnishings (except vehicles and jewelry) to be divided by a random lot/coin-toss draw.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; Kentucky Supreme Court granted review on two issues and affirmed in part, reversed in part: upheld classification of house equity as marital, rejected use of random draw and remanded for proper findings and equitable division of personal property.
Issues
| Issue | Bradley’s Argument | Barber’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $246,000 from Barber’s parents (and resulting equity) is marital or nonmarital | Barber effectively gifted his nonmarital funds to the marital estate (or to Bradley) by promising joint ownership and recording a joint deed; equity is marital and divisible | The parental transfers were gifts to Barber alone (nonmarital) and should be restored to him before dividing marital property; title/transmutation cannot convert separate funds into marital property | Trial court correctly found the parental transfers were nonmarital to Barber but Barber later gifted his nonmarital interest to the marital estate (via promises and joint deed); equity is marital and split 50/50. |
| Whether placing the deed in joint names alone transmuted separate funds into marital property | The combination of repeated promises and joint deed shows intent to make the house marital | Rely on Sexton: title alone cannot transmute; source-of-funds tracing controls; deed insufficient to defeat nonmarital claim | Kentucky rejects automatic transmutation by title alone, but a spouse may gift separate funds to the marital estate; here sufficient evidence (promises + deed) supported finding a gift to the marital estate. |
| Proper characterization and division of household goods and personal property | Many items were disputed but parties had lists and some agreed items; division should follow KRS 403.190 factors | Trial court’s random-draw scheme was inappropriate; undisputed nonmarital items must be assigned and contested items adjudicated with findings | Trial court erred: must assign undisputed nonmarital items, make findings on disputed items, and divide marital personal property equitably under KRS 403.190; random draw vacated and case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sexton v. Sexton, 125 S.W.3d 258 (Ky. 2004) (source-of-funds rule controls classification; title is not dispositive and transmutation doctrine rejected)
- O'Neill v. O'Neill, 600 S.W.2d 493 (Ky. App. 1980) (four-factor test for determining whether a transfer constitutes a gift)
- Vinson v. Sorrell, 136 S.W.3d 465 (Ky. 2004) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings in bench trials)
- Sawyers v. Better, 384 S.W.3d 107 (Ky. 2012) (appellate review of legal conclusions is de novo)