Kenneth Kirilenko v. Cherryl Kirilenko
2015 SC 000661
Ky.Jan 10, 2017Background
- Kenneth and Cherryl Kirilenko married in 1986; separated in 2004; dissolution filed in Boyle Circuit Court in 2010 and decree entered 2012–2013.
- Kenneth worked for Connecticut state government and retired July 1, 2001, receiving disability retirement benefits under the Connecticut State Employees Retirement System.
- Cherryl moved to Kentucky in 2000 for work; both were domiciled in Kentucky at time of dissolution.
- Parties disputed whether Kenneth’s Connecticut disability benefits are marital property subject to division.
- Trial court applied Kentucky law (marital domicile rule) and treated benefits as non-marital; Court of Appeals applied the Restatement’s “most significant relationship” test and held Connecticut law governs.
- Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, held forum (Kentucky) law governs classification/division of marital property, and remanded for factual findings about the benefit terms and QDRO treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state’s law governs classification of retirement/disability benefits acquired out of state during marriage | Cherryl: Connecticut law applies because benefits were earned and payable under Connecticut law | Kenneth: Kentucky law (marital domicile/forum) applies because parties domiciled in Kentucky at dissolution | Kentucky forum law governs classification/division of marital property (reverse Court of Appeals) |
| Whether the Restatement (Second) most-significant-relationship test applies in dissolution/property division | Cherryl/Ct. of Appeals: Apply Restatement §§ 258/259; Connecticut has most significant relationship | Kenneth: Kentucky has traditionally applied marital domicile rule for domestic cases | Court: Declines to adopt Restatement approach for domestic equitable distribution; applies marital domicile/forum rule |
| Are disability benefits that may convert to retirement divisible as marital property | Cherryl: If converted later, divisible at conversion (per Bailey) | Kenneth: Benefits classified as replacement for future income and non-marital under Kentucky precedent | Court: Remanded for factfinding about conversion potential; acknowledges Bailey principle and directs trial court to address conversion/QDRO issues |
| Whether trial record adequately shows terms of benefits and QDRO compliance | Cherryl: Record unclear; needs factual development | Kenneth: (implicit) trial court found non-marital under Kentucky law | Court: Agrees record lacks clarity on benefit composition and QDRO treatment; remand for factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Mickey v. Mickey, 974 A.2d 641 (Conn. 2009) (Connecticut decision recognizing some disability benefits as marital property)
- Holman v. Holman, 84 S.W.3d 903 (Ky. 2002) (Kentucky treats disability benefits that replace future income as non-marital)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 399 S.W.3d 797 (Ky. 2013) (disability benefits converted to pension become divisible at conversion)
- Fehr v. Fehr, 284 S.W.3d 149 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008) (marital domicile rule: law of marital domicile applies absent agreement)
- Rowley v. Lampe, 331 S.W.2d 887 (Ky. 1960) (earlier Kentucky authority supporting forum/marital domicile rule)
- Schnuerle v. Insight Commc'ns Co., L.P., 376 S.W.3d 561 (Ky. 2012) (Kentucky follows most-significant-relationship approach in tort/contract contexts)
- Saleba v. Schrand, 300 S.W.3d 177 (Ky. 2009) (discussion of choice-of-law approaches in Kentucky)