James White v. Julie White
2024-CA-0655
| Ky. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2025Background
- James White (Appellant) and Julie White (Appellee) were married for 26 years; both children are adults.
- After leaving his job as an aircraft mechanic in 2005, James became a stay-at-home father, working only occasionally.
- At dissolution, Julie earned about $150,000/year at DHL; James had recently started working as a mechanic for $15–$20/hour.
- James received over $277,000 in marital assets and will receive half of Julie's future retirement; Julie covered many of his expenses post-separation.
- James requested spousal maintenance, arguing his years as a homemaker and disparity in income justified support; the family court denied maintenance, finding he had sufficient assets and earning ability to meet his needs.
- The family court further found James was voluntarily underemployed and had not made efforts to seek higher-paying employment or jobs with benefits.
Issues
| Issue | White's Argument | White (Julie)'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether maintenance is warranted | Maintains property/assets plus current earnings are insufficient; relied on his early financial and ongoing homemaker contributions | Asserts equitable division of assets and evidence that James could support himself; maintenance not required | Denied maintenance—assets and income sufficient |
| Application of KRS 403.200 factors to facts | Factors (long marriage, difference in income, contributions) justify an award | Statutory criteria not met, including showing inability to support himself | Family court properly applied statute; no abuse |
| Credibility and weight of evidence (caretaking, homemaking) | He was primary caretaker for many years, justifying support | Equal contributions in parenting and homemaking | Court found Julie's testimony more credible |
| Voluntary underemployment and earning capacity | Claims lack of current qualifications limits employment; unwilling to resume aircraft mechanic work | James has skills for more lucrative work but is not seeking employment at full capacity | Voluntary underemployment noted but not dispositive; main holding is sufficient resources |
Key Cases Cited
- Inman v. Inman, 648 S.W.2d 847 (Ky. 1982) (addressed maintenance awards in context of contributions to spouse's professional development)
- Lovett v. Lovett, 688 S.W.2d 329 (Ky. 1985) (maintenance consideration where one spouse supported household during the other's education)
- Young v. Young, 314 S.W.3d 306 (Ky. App. 2010) (standards for reviewing maintenance decisions—abuse of discretion)
- McGregor v. McGregor, 334 S.W.3d 113 (Ky. App. 2011) (outlines deference to trial court decisions in maintenance context)
- Janakakis-Kostun v. Janakakis, 6 S.W.3d 843 (Ky. App. 1999) (defines substantial evidence supporting findings)
- Stipp v. St. Charles, 291 S.W.3d 720 (Ky. App. 2009) (conclusions of law reviewed de novo)