Muir v. Muir
406 S.W.3d 31
Ky. Ct. App.2013Background
- Robert and Ardell Muir married in 1995, separated in February 1999; marriage lasted effectively ~4 years of joint support.
- Robert owned 4307 West Kentucky Street outright before marriage; assessed at trial value ~$35,820; adjacent lot also owned by Robert pre-marriage.
- In 1997 Ardell’s uncle (Cole Shelton) quitclaimed 1008 Woodway Lane to both parties; Ardell paid taxes, insurance, maintenance and ~$26,960 in improvements and lived there caring for Shelton; appraised value at trial $50,000.
- Parties disputed who lived where when, but court found Ardell moved to Woodway to care for Shelton and did not return to West Kentucky; Robert returned to West Kentucky after moving out of Woodway.
- Family court dissolved the marriage (Feb 27, 2012): awarded West Kentucky and certain Indiana/Floyd County property to Robert as non-marital; awarded Woodway to Ardell as marital property; divided Ardell’s retirement benefits for the marital portion; denied attorney’s fees; left title issues as to Shelton’s property items (e.g., radio) to probate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robert) | Defendant's Argument (Ardell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of Floyd County/Indiana property | Trial court erred in treating it as Robert’s non-marital property | Property was deeded to Robert pre-marriage and is non-marital | Court: property is Robert’s non-marital property; no error |
| Ownership/share in Muir Farm stock | Court erred regarding marital interest in shares | Court correctly denied Ardell’s claim to those shares | Court: no reversible error; unclear basis for Robert’s challenge |
| Portable radio stipulation | Parties stipulated Robert gets radio; court erred by not awarding it | Radio belonged to Shelton; disposition is probate matter | Court: trial court properly left item to probate; parties cannot stipulate as to third party property |
| West Kentucky property waiver/contradiction | Court’s inconsistent findings about waiver were clearly erroneous | Court restored Robert’s non-marital interest; any inconsistent language was harmless | Court: inconsistency harmless; ultimate award to Robert stands |
| Award of Woodway property as marital to Ardell | Court failed to explain why Ardell received full Woodway (Robert sought $25,000) | Ardell contributed payments, improvements, and caretaking; parties only jointly supported ~41 months; court considered KRS 403.190 factors | Court: considered statutory factors and joint efforts; awarding Woodway to Ardell not an abuse of discretion |
| Retirement benefits tracing (Deferred Comp) | Ardell failed to trace non-marital portion; trial court erred | Retirement accrues and marital portion was properly identified and divided | Court: Robert’s tracing argument misconstrues tracing rules; family court correctly divided marital portion |
| Attorney’s fees | Trial court abused discretion by denying fees despite disparity of resources | KRS 403.220 allows but does not require fees; court declined after considering resources | Court: denial was within discretion; no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Johnson, 564 S.W.2d 221 (Ky. Ct. App.) (appellate review limited; trial court findings not to be disturbed absent clear error)
- Shively v. Shively, 233 S.W.3d 738 (Ky. Ct. App.) (property division within trial court’s sound discretion)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 231 S.W.3d 793 (Ky. Ct. App.) (family court may assess witness credibility and demeanor)
- Garrett v. Garrett, 766 S.W.2d 634 (Ky. Ct. App.) (KRS 403.190 requires division of marital property in just proportions)
- Stallings v. Stallings, 606 S.W.2d 163 (Ky.) (court may consider joint efforts when dividing marital property)
- Terwilliger v. Terwilliger, 64 S.W.3d 816 (Ky.) (tracing non-marital property principles in family division context)
- Cochran v. Cochran, 746 S.W.2d 568 (Ky. Ct. App.) (trial court discretion in awarding attorney’s fees after considering financial resources)