Triplett v. Triplett
414 S.W.3d 11
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Karen and Tom Triplett married in 1990; four children; separation in 2009; divorce filed 2010 with focus on pension division.
- Tom retired from GE in 1997; he receives a monthly pension and has other income; Karen's GE S&SP dividend income noted.
- Trial court classified Tom’s GE pension as marital/non-marital portions and ordered Karen to receive 10% of pension plus portions of other accounts; 41% of Karen's personal pension account and other allocations followed.
- Karen argued for the coverture method or alternative subtraction/bright-line methods to determine marital share and sought different monthly pension figures.
- The court entered findings May 2011 and a supplemental decree August 2011; CR 59.05 motion denied October 2011; November 2011 order addressed pension and child support and preserved prior rulings.
- The Court of Appeals agreed Karen failed to preserve her appellate arguments before the trial court and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Karen preserved her appellate pension arguments. | Karen argues the trial court should have used a different method. | Tom argues arguments were not raised in the trial court. | Preservation required; arguments not preserved; affirmed. |
| Whether the trial court properly classified and valued Tom’s pension as marital and non-marital. | Karen urged a coverture fraction or alternative methods to allocate marital share. | Court used a coverture-based approach and findings supported by evidence. | No abuse of discretion; classification/valuation supported. |
| Whether the court erred in failing to award child support based on the pension issue. | Karen sought child support; included in CR 59.05 motion aspects. | Pension division distinct from child support; no error shown. | Affirmed; issue not revisited on appeal. |
| Whether the court properly followed legal authority in pension-distribution rulings. | Karen referenced additional authorities and methods. | Court relied on established Kentucky case law and evidence. | No reversible error; rulings affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. Risen, 598 S.W.2d 474 (Ky.App.1980) (preservation required; appellate court not trial court)
- Raisor v. Raisor, 245 S.W.3d 807 (Ky.App.2008) (cannot present new theory on appeal; preserve first in trial court)
- Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 544 S.W.2d 219 (Ky.1976) (cant feed different theories to trial and appellate courts)
- Young v. Young, 314 S.W.3d 306 (Ky.App.2010) (abuse of discretion standard for asset division)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 34 S.W.3d 83 (Ky.App.2000) (review value/division of marital assets for abuse of discretion)