Kerry A. Nielsen Ehr v. Hon Dee McDonald Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court, Family Division Eight
2016 SC 000110
| Ky. | Dec 14, 2016Background
- Kerry A. Neilsen Ehr (Appellant) and Andrew D. Ehr married in Wisconsin in 1987; Andrew moved to Louisville, Kentucky in 2009 while Kerry remained a Wisconsin resident.
- Andrew filed for divorce in Jefferson Circuit Court (Kentucky) about six years after relocating.
- Kerry moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and inconvenient forum; the trial court ruled it had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction and that Kentucky was the more convenient forum.
- Kerry sought a writ of prohibition in the Court of Appeals to prevent the trial court from adjudicating spousal maintenance and property division (beyond dissolution). The Court of Appeals denied the writ.
- Kerry appealed the denial, arguing (1) the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because it lacked personal jurisdiction for ancillary claims and (2) she alternatively qualified for a "special case" writ due to irreparable harm in family-law proceedings.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, concluding the prerequisites for a writ were not met (subject-matter jurisdiction present, adequate appellate remedy available, no irreparable injury).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because it lacked personal jurisdiction over Kerry | Kerry: Personal-jurisdiction defect over ancillary claims means the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, warranting a writ | Andrew/Respondents: Trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the divorce; lack of personal jurisdiction is an error within subject-matter jurisdiction, not absence of it | Held: Court has subject-matter jurisdiction; personal-jurisdiction issues make the court erroneously acting within jurisdiction (Goldstein governs) |
| Whether a writ of prohibition (second-class) should issue because Kerry would suffer irreparable injury and has no adequate remedy on appeal | Kerry: Divorce-related harms (loss of control over assets, financial disadvantage, emotional hardship) constitute irreparable injury and lack an adequate appellate remedy | Respondents: Time and expense of litigation are not irreparable; trial court issued final, appealable orders so appellate review is available | Held: Kerry failed to show irreparable injury or lack of adequate remedy; writ denied |
| Whether this case qualifies for a "special case" writ because family-law proceedings are statutorily prioritized and cause unique harms | Kerry: KRS Chapter 403’s policy to mitigate harm from divorce supports recognizing irreparable injury meriting special writ relief | Respondents: Statutory policy and ordinary hardships of divorce do not meet the high standard for a special-case writ | Held: Statutory policy does not transform ordinary divorce hardships into irreparable injury for special writ purposes; special writ not warranted |
| Standard of review for writ denial and factual findings by Court of Appeals | Kerry: (implicit) Court of Appeals erred in analysis and should have granted writ | Respondents: Court of Appeals’ factual findings reviewed for clear error and its denial reviewed for abuse of discretion | Held: Court of Appeals’ factual findings supported by substantial evidence; denial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bender v. Eaton, 343 S.W.2d 799 (Ky. 1961) (writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy, cautiously granted)
- Goldstein v. Feeley, 299 S.W.3d 549 (Ky. 2009) (lack of personal jurisdiction is an error within subject-matter jurisdiction, not absence of it)
- PremierTox 2.0 v. Miniard, 407 S.W.3d 542 (Ky. 2013) (describing classes of writs and standards)
- 3M Co. v. Engle, 328 S.W.3d 184 (Ky. 2010) (framework for extraordinary writ relief)
- Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. 2004) (standard of review for factual findings in writ proceedings)
- Miller v. Eldridge, 146 S.W.3d 909 (Ky. 2004) (substantial-evidence review for writ factual findings)