Boone v. Boone
463 S.W.3d 767
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Tiffany Boone filed a domestic violence petition in Campbell Circuit Court while a dissolution and custody action between the parties was pending in Boone County.
- The Campbell Circuit Court held a hearing on October 2, 2014, and orally granted the DVO at the conclusion of the hearing.
- The trial judge placed findings on the video record and the docket contains a handwritten note: “DVO granted — findings on record.”
- Michael Boone requested written findings and that the order be labeled final and appealable; the judge referenced the on-record oral findings.
- Michael appealed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, but the appellate court remanded for procedural deficiencies relating to written findings rather than addressing the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether oral findings on the record satisfy CR 52.01 for a bench trial decision | Boone argued oral findings (on video) and docket notation suffice to support the DVO and permit appellate review | Campbell County relied on the trial court's oral findings as reflected on video and the docket note | Court held CR 52.01 requires written findings; oral findings must be incorporated into a written, properly entered order — remand for written findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ghali v. Ghali, 596 S.W.2d 31 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980) (CR 52.01 applies in family law matters)
- Holland v. Holland, 290 S.W.3d 671 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009) (a court speaks through its writings)
- Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship v. Sloan, 329 S.W.3d 347 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010) (oral findings admissible only if incorporated into a written order)
- Midland Guardian Acceptance Corp. v. Britt, 439 S.W.2d 313 (Ky. 1968) (docket notations are not judgments)
- Commonwealth v. Alleman, 306 S.W.3d 484 (Ky. 2010) (video-recorded proceedings may be relevant in limited circumstances)
- Anderson v. Johnson, 350 S.W.3d 453 (Ky. 2011) (CR 52.01 requires written findings be included in an order)
- Keifer v. Keifer, 354 S.W.3d 123 (Ky. 2011) (trial court duty not satisfied until findings are reduced to writing; remand to enter written findings)
- Rankin v. Criswell, 277 S.W.3d 621 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008) (DVO proceedings must be complete and thorough given family impact)
- Wright v. Wright, 181 S.W.3d 49 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005) (erroneous entry of EPO/DVO can have devastating consequences)