Keith Herron v. Catherine L. Specht, 2020 CA 000361

Herron and Specht cohabitated; Specht purchased the house in her name in 2013 and was the sole legal owner.
While living together, Herron regularly deposited into Specht’s account an amount equal to the mortgage payment and shared household expenses.
After their romantic relationship ended, they signed a handwritten contract (Sept. 8, 2018): Herron would pay utilities, mortgage-equivalent payments, and perform specified repairs; Specht would list the home for sale and split net proceeds after mortgage payoff if they agreed on price.
An altercation led Specht to obtain an Emergency Protective Order (EPO) in Jan. 2019, which removed Herron from the residence and limited his access.
Herron sued to enforce the contract; the trial court found Herron stopped paying obligations and completed none of the agreed repairs, excusing Specht from listing and splitting proceeds; the court also rejected Herron’s claim to an equitable interest in the property.
On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s findings and legal conclusions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Herron performed his contractual obligations	Herron contends his past payments and ongoing contributions entitled him to enforce the agreement	Specht contends Herron stopped payments and did not complete required repairs	Herron breached; factual finding supported by substantial evidence; performance was not completed
Whether Specht was excused from listing and splitting sale proceeds	Herron says Specht was obligated to list once the agreement existed	Specht says Herron’s breach justified abandoning the contract	Specht was free to abandon the contract due to Herron’s nonperformance
Whether Herron acquired an equitable interest in the property (equitable estoppel/constructive trust)	Herron argues his payments and conduct created an equitable ownership interest (citing out-of-state authority)	Specht argues Herron failed to prove elements of equitable estoppel and she is sole legal titleholder	Herron failed to establish equitable estoppel or any equitable interest under Kentucky law
Whether the trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous	Herron contends the court erred in credibility/findings	Specht contends findings are supported by the record and applicable standards	Appellate review: findings not clearly erroneous; legal conclusions reviewed de novo and affirmed

Lawson v. Loid, 896 S.W.2d 1 (Ky. 1995) (standard of review for bench-trial factual findings)
Mostert v. Mostert Grp., LLC, 606 S.W.3d 87 (Ky. 2020) (breach by one party can excuse the other from further performance)
Sebastian-Voor Properties, LLC v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 265 S.W.3d 190 (Ky. 2008) (elements required for equitable estoppel/equitable interest)
Croley v. Alsip, 602 S.W.2d 418 (Ky. 1980) (appellate deference to trial court factfinding under CR 52.01)
Bishop v. Brock, 610 S.W.3d 347 (Ky. App. 2020) (review standards for circuit court findings after bench trial)