Rumpel v. Rumpel, 438 S.W.3d 354

Kaven and Kathie Rumpel divorced after a marriage that included Kaven's ownership of Advantage Associates, Inc. and its real estate subsidiary (a strip-mall housing bingo halls and other tenants).
Kathie sought attorney’s fees and contested valuation of the businesses; both parties obtained competing December 2008 appraisals (Kathie’s experts ~ $383,000 business value; Kaven’s experts negative value).
At judgment the trial court adopted Kathie’s valuation, awarded most business assets to Kaven, ordered Kaven to pay Kathie an equalization payment, awarded Kathie maintenance, and awarded Kathie $50,000 in attorneys’ fees (language invoked both CR 37.03 sanctions and KRS 403.220).
Post-judgment, Kathie moved under CR 59.05 to increase the business valuation based on evidence she had introduced (showing mortgage principal had decreased), and the trial court granted an amendment increasing Kathie’s equalization award.
Kaven appealed, challenging: (1) the $50,000 fee award as an improper CR 37.03 discovery sanction for denials of requests for admission; and (2) the CR 59.05 post-judgment amendment increasing the business valuation.
The Kentucky Supreme Court held the CR 37.03 fee sanction was an abuse of discretion (denials were reasonably disputable) but left open fee relief under KRS 403.220; it reversed the CR 59.05 amendment and remanded for the trial court to reconsider fees under KRS 403.220.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kathie)	Defendant's Argument (Kaven)	Held
Whether trial court properly awarded $50,000 as a CR 37.03 sanction for Kaven's denials of requests for admission about business value	Kathie: Kaven improperly denied requests; she proved the matters at trial and is entitled to CR 37.03 fees for expenses in proving them	Kaven: Denials were reasonable because the requests misstated the agreement and the valuation was genuinely disputed; sanction improper	Court: Reversed — CR 37.03 sanction was an abuse of discretion because Kaven had reasonable grounds to deny the requests when the value was legitimately disputed
Whether trial court could use CR 59.05 post-judgment to increase business valuation based on mortgage reduction evidence introduced at trial	Kathie: Mortgage principal reduction increased equity pre-judgment; CR 59.05 permits amendment to prevent injustice and reflect accurate marital property	Kaven: Matter could and should have been raised before judgment; CR 59.05 is not a vehicle to raise issues available at trial	Court: Reversed — CR 59.05 may not be used to introduce or rely on arguments/evidence that should have been presented before judgment; trial court abused discretion

Bell v. Commonwealth, 423 S.W.3d 742 (Ky. 2014) (American Rule and narrow construction of fee-shifting exceptions)
Turner v. Andrew, 413 S.W.3d 272 (Ky. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discovery sanctions)
Gentry v. Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928 (Ky. 1990) (KRS 403.220 permits fee-shifting to address disparities and litigation conduct that inflates costs)
Neidlinger v. Neidlinger, 52 S.W.3d 513 (Ky. 2001) (disparate resources required to invoke KRS 403.220)
Sexton v. Sexton, 125 S.W.3d 258 (Ky. 2004) (factors for awarding fees under KRS 403.220)