Holt v. Holt
458 S.W.3d 806
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Tammy and James Holt were separated and had a pending dissolution/custody action in Bullitt Family Court; they formerly lived in Bullitt County.
- After separation James moved to Nelson County and filed DVO petitions (for himself and his child) in Nelson County on Aug. 14, 2014; the child petition was later dismissed.
- Nelson District Court initially entered emergency orders but then set them aside and transferred the matter to the Bullitt Family Court because a related Bullitt family-court action was pending.
- Bullitt Family Court held a hearing on Sept. 2, 2014; both parties, represented by counsel, testified under oath and were cross-examined.
- The Bullitt Family Court issued a DVO restraining Tammy from contact, imposing a 500-foot stay-away, and requiring anger-management counseling.
- Tammy appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction/venue, insufficient evidence, and that she was denied a meaningful hearing. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (James) | Defendant's Argument (Tammy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bullitt Family Court had jurisdiction/venue to issue DVO | Venue in Bullitt was proper because dissolution proceedings were pending there; family court has jurisdiction over DVOs | Bullitt court lacked jurisdiction because James was a Nelson County resident and filed in Nelson | Bullitt had subject-matter jurisdiction; venue was proper in Bullitt under KRS 403.725(4) because dissolution was pending — transfer was appropriate |
| Whether DVO was supported by substantial evidence | Testimony and circumstantial evidence (previous physical attacks, stalking, break-in, damaged door/photos) showed past abuse and reasonable fear of future abuse | Denied physical assault and unlawful entry; argued circumstantial evidence was insufficient | Trial court’s credibility findings supported by substantial evidence; DVO appropriately issued under preponderance standard |
| Whether hearing met statutory/due process requirements | Hearing was meaningful: both parties gave sworn testimony, were represented, and cross-examined | Argued she was denied a "meaningful hearing" | Due process satisfied — parties had meaningful opportunity to be heard; hearing met KRS 403.750(1) requirements |
| Whether clerk’s initial refusal to file in Bullitt affected the case | (Not a separate party claim by James; raised in concurrence) Filing in Nelson delayed proceedings but did not deprive court of authority | Clerk told James to file in Nelson, creating procedural confusion | Concurrence criticized clerk’s ministerial overreach; judicial decision, not clerk, controls filing sufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Biggs v. Biggs, 301 S.W.3d 32 (Ky. App.) (standard of review for legal questions)
- Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. 2004) (de novo review of legal issues)
- Baze v. Commonwealth, 276 S.W.3d 761 (Ky. 2008) (distinction between jurisdiction and venue)
- Winstead v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 386 (Ky. 2010) (circuit-court authority across state)
- Sitar v. Commonwealth, 407 S.W.3d 538 (Ky. 2013) (family courts’ jurisdiction over domestic violence)
- Gomez v. Gomez, 254 S.W.3d 838 (Ky. App.) (family court is primary forum; district court has concurrent jurisdiction)
- Abbott v. Chesley, 413 S.W.3d 589 (Ky. 2013) (receiving court may retain transferred case)
- Wright v. Wright, 181 S.W.3d 49 (Ky. App.) ("meaningful opportunity to be heard" standard)