Stephen Holbrook v. Jenny Elice Holbrook
2019 CA 001657
| Ky. Ct. App. | Oct 7, 2021Background
- Stephen and Jenny Holbrook divorced in 2012; post‑decree hearings in late 2012 resolved outstanding issues without Stephen present.
- On April 15, 2014 the court ordered Jenny $350/month maintenance until she was awarded Social Security Disability (SSD); that order was not appealed.
- On September 15, 2015 the parties entered an agreed order: Stephen would pay $350/month maintenance, his $3,500 arrears would be paid from his Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System Account (KTRSA), and a garnishment would issue against the half of his KTRSA not already awarded to Jenny.
- Stephen filed a “Motion to Modify Decree” in September 2017 claiming Jenny had abandoned her SSD claim; after a DRC hearing in May 2019 the DRC found Stephen owed maintenance from April 11, 2014 to April 26, 2018 (totaling $15,850).
- Stephen filed exceptions; the circuit court overruled them and entered the order October 4, 2019; Stephen appealed, raising three substantive challenges but failing to preserve them properly on appeal.
- The circuit court ultimately ordered maintenance paid directly to Jenny despite statutory protections for KTRSA funds; the Court of Appeals reviewed only for manifest injustice because of appellate briefing and preservation defects and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Stephen's Argument | Jenny's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by not making KRS 403.200(1) findings supporting maintenance | April 15, 2014 and Oct. 4, 2019 orders lacked statutory findings that Jenny lacks sufficient property and cannot support herself | Parties had an agreed order (2015) in which Stephen consented to pay $350/month, rendering challenge moot | Affirmed: argument unpreserved and moot because Stephen agreed to maintenance in the 2015 order |
| Whether maintenance should have been modified earlier under KRS 403.250 | Stephen sought modification, alleging Jenny abandoned her SSD claim; contends change in circumstances warranted relief | Court discontinued payments effective April 26, 2018; no record of changed circumstances warranting earlier modification | Affirmed: no manifest injustice shown; no basis to modify prior to April 26, 2018 |
| Whether KTRSA funds could be used to satisfy maintenance despite KRS 161.700 protections | Argued using teachers’ retirement to satisfy maintenance would circumvent KRS 161.700 and is impermissible absent agreement | 2015 agreed order earmarked arrears and future garnishment from the non‑awarded half of KTRSA; court found KRS 161.700 applied but still ordered payments to Jenny | Affirmed: Stephen’s argument disfavored because he previously agreed to the KTRSA arrangement and did not preserve the issue on appeal |
| Whether appellate noncompliance with CR 76.12 warranted relief | Stephen pressed the merits on appeal | Jenny did not file a brief; court exercises discretion on procedural defaults | Court reviewed only for manifest injustice due to appellant’s failures to preserve and to comply with CR 76.12; no manifest injustice found, so affirmance upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Hallis v. Hallis, 328 S.W.3d 694 (Ky. App. 2010) (emphasizing strict compliance with procedural rules on appeal)
- Keco v. Ayala, 592 S.W.3d 753 (Ky. App. 2019) (issues not ruled on by trial court cannot be raised on appeal)
- Reg'l Jail Auth. v. Tackett, 770 S.W.2d 225 (Ky. 1989) (appellate court lacks authority to review issues not raised or decided below)
- Commonwealth v. Roth, 567 S.W.3d 591 (Ky. 2019) (appellant’s duty to provide record citations; failure justifies not addressing merits)
- Petrie v. Brackett, 590 S.W.3d 830 (Ky. App. 2019) (consequences of failing to comply with appellate briefing rules)
- Elwell v. Stone, 799 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. App. 1990) (review options when appellant fails to abide by briefing rules)
- St. Joseph Catholic Orphan Society v. Edwards, 449 S.W.3d 727 (Ky. 2014) (procedural consequences when appellee fails to file a brief)
- Oakley v. Oakley, 391 S.W.3d 377 (Ky. App. 2012) (necessity of preserving issues for appellate review)
- Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2006) (standard for manifest injustice/palpable error review)