Hempel v. Hempel
380 S.W.3d 549
Ky. Ct. App.2012Background
- Daniel Hempel and Karen were married in 1991 and have two children (one emancipated).
- Daniel filed a petition for dissolution in January 2009; a limited decree was entered November 4, 2010.
- Trial occurred January 27, 2011; March 11, 2011 order awarded joint custody with Karen as primary custodian, later amended to reduce Daniel’s time with the children, and imputed Daniel’s income.
- Daniel was ordered to pay $812.50 monthly child support and Karen to provide health insurance for the children.
- Daniel appealed alleging errors in time-sharing, income imputation, and division of assets/photographs; the Court remanded on time-sharing and income issues while affirming most other aspects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time-sharing schedule adequacy | Daniel argues the court reduced his time with the children without substantial evidence. | Hempel asserts evidence showed he maintained significant time with the children. | Remanded for further consideration of time-sharing. |
| Income imputation for child support | Daniel contends insufficient findings to support imputing equal income to Karen. | Court found Daniel underemployed but provided inadequate factual basis for imputation. | Remanded for additional findings on income imputation. |
| Equitable division of family photographs | Daniel claims improper division and failure to allocate costs for duplicating photos. | Court did not adequately address division of photographs. | Remanded for equitable division of family photographs. |
| Uniform Gifts to Minors Act accounts oversight | Daniel seeks ongoing right to oversee custodial accounts. | Karen as custodian may monitor accounts; records must be available. | Court correct; Daniel may review records. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drury v. Drury, 32 S.W.3d 521 (Ky.App.2000) (trial court wide discretion in custody matters; living arrangements for children)
- McKinney v. McKinney, 257 S.W.3d 130 (Ky.App.2008) (deference to trial court time-sharing decisions; abuse of discretion standard)
- Downing v. Downing, 45 S.W.3d 449 (Ky.App.2001) (broad discretion in setting child support; abuse of discretion standard)
- Greathouse v. American National Bank and Trust Co., 796 S.W.2d 868 (Ky.App.1990) (need for adequate factual findings when reviewing agency decisions)
- Neidlinger v. Neidlinger, 52 S.W.3d 513 (Ky.2001) (dividing marital property; abuse of discretion standard)