RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 25, 2020; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2018-CA-1530-MR

AND

NO. 2018-CA-1842-MR

LOUISA W. HENSON, EXECUTRIX

OF THE ESTATE OF THEODORE

L. MUSSLER, JR. APPELLANT

APPEALS FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

FAMILY DIVISION

v. HONORABLE A. CHRISTINE WARD, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 91-FD-000314

MARGARET E. MUSSLER AND

HAROLD L. STORMENT APPELLEES

OPINION

AFFIRMING IN PART,

REVERSING IN PART, AND

REMANDING

**   **  **

BEFORE: JONES, MAZE, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
-2-

MAZE, JUDGE: These consolidated appeals challenge orders of the Jefferson 

Family Court which denied the decedent Theodore Mussler’s motion to modify 

maintenance, granted appellee Margaret Mussler’s motion to hold Mr. Mussler in 

contempt for failure to pay maintenance and interest, and awarded attorney’s fees 

to Margaret’s counsel, appellee Harold Storment. We affirm in part, reverse in 

part, and remand.

FACTS

Pursuant to a property settlement agreement executed in 1992, Mr. 

Mussler (hereinafter “Ted”) agreed to pay Margaret the sum of $3,500.00 per 

month until her death, remarriage, cohabitation with a non-relative adult male, or 

further order of court. In 2011, Ted moved to terminate or modify his maintenance 

obligation. After a hearing, the family court entered a 2013 order reducing his 

maintenance obligation from $3,500.00 to $2,614.00, stemming in part from 

Margaret’s receipt of Social Security benefits. Both parties appealed from the 

entry of that order. During the pendency of those appeals, the parties reached a 

settlement agreement after which the family court in January 2014 entered an 

agreed order reducing Ted’s maintenance obligation to the current amount of 

$2,800.00 per month.

Alleging that Ted had unilaterally ceased making maintenance 

payments, Margaret garnished Ted’s bank accounts in March 2016. Thereafter, 
-3-

Ted filed a May 2016 motion to reduce or terminate his maintenance obligation 

alleging that due to deteriorating health, advanced age, and declining income, he 

was no longer able to satisfy the obligation. After a series of motions to compel 

production of documents and for contempt, as well as a motion by Ted’s then-wife,

appellant Louisa Henson, to quash a subpoena duces tecum concerning her 

financial records, the family court conducted three hearings in this matter. A

December 2017 hearing produced an order directing the parties to brief the issue of 

how to interpret and apply KRS1 403.250 to Ted’s motion to terminate or reduce 

maintenance, specifically whether any change in circumstances was to be 

measured from the date of the original decree or the date of the 2014 agreed order 

reducing maintenance to the current amount. By order entered in March 2018, the 

family court concluded that the appropriate measure was from the most recent 

order modifying maintenance.

After conducting additional hearings in March and August 2018, the 

family court entered orders 1) denying Ted’s motion to terminate maintenance; 2)

granting Margaret’s motion to hold Ted in contempt for failure to timely satisfy 

maintenance payments and awarding Margaret a judgment amounting to 

$78,400.00 for previously accrued maintenance payments; 3) granting Margaret’s 

motion for contempt for failure to comply with an April 2005 order requiring Ted 

 

1 Kentucky Revised Statute.
-4-

to pay interest on a previous arrearage and awarding Margaret the sum of 

$7,932.19 for that arrearage; and 4) awarding Margaret’s counsel the sum of 

$37,712.50 in attorney’s fees. Because Ted passed away during the pendency of 

his appeals from those orders, Louisa Henson, Ted’s widow and executrix of his 

estate, was substituted as appellant. 

Louisa advances four arguments to support her contention that the

decision below must be set aside: 1) that the family court erred in evaluating Ted’s 

claim of changed circumstances from the date of the 2014 agreed order, rather than 

the date of the original decree; 2) that the family court abused its discretion in 

refusing to terminate maintenance on the basis of changed circumstances; 3) that 

the family court abused its discretion in holding Ted in contempt for failure to 

meet his maintenance obligation; and 4) that the award of attorney’s fees was not 

only an abuse of discretion, but contrary to law. Because these appeals center on 

Ted’s alleged right to be relieved of his maintenance obligation, our review 

necessarily focuses upon KRS 403.250(1) and its mandate that “the provisions of 

any decree respecting maintenance may be modified only upon a showing of 

changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms 

unconscionable.” With the dictates of that statute in mind, we turn to an 

examination of the arguments pressed for reversal.
-5-

I. DID THE FAMILY COURT USE THE CORRECT MEASURE 

IN EVALUATING CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES?

Louisa first maintains that the family court misconstrued the decision 

of this Court in Wheeler v. Wheeler, 154 S.W.3d 291 (Ky. App. 2004), which 

addressed the calculation of changed circumstances in terms of res judicata:

As a general rule, res judicata precludes the relitigation

of issues that have been previously decided between two 

or more parties. In the context of motions to modify 

spousal maintenance, there is considerable support for 

the proposition that “[w]here the court has decided one 

petition for modification, the order entered in that 

proceeding is res judicata, and a second petition for 

modification thus cannot be entertained unless it can be 

shown that there has been a substantial change of 

circumstances since the earlier decision was made.” In 

Micheu v. Micheu, [440 So.2d 240, 242 (La. Ct. App.

1983)], the Louisiana Court of Appeals framed the issue 

as follows:

The determination, then, to be made is—has 

a substantial change of circumstances 

occurred since the award of alimony, or 

since the last change in that award? This 

analysis is to be made each time either 

spouse files a rule to increase, decrease, or 

terminate alimony previously granted.

Id. at 293-94 (footnotes omitted). The Wheeler Court further clarified the 

rationale for its holding in a footnote to the Micheu citation:

See also Hosford v. Hosford, 362 So.2d 973, 974 (Fla. Ct.

App. 1978) (holding that “[o]nce the court has found 

sufficient change in circumstances to require 

modification and thereupon enters an order, the facts and 

circumstances supporting that modification may not be 
-6-

revisited by the court as a basis for further 

modification”); Marriott v. Marriott, 347 Ill. App. 372, 

106 N.E.2d 876, 878 (1952) (stating that a previous order 

granting a modification of maintenance was res judicata, 

and that the circumstances which justified the original 

modification could not be used to support a subsequent 

motion to modify); and Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 553 

S.W.2d 485, 487 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977) (holding that “the 

date of the change of circumstances to be used would 

be the last prior modification rather than the 

circumstances existing on the date of the original 

decree”).

Id. at 294 n.8 (emphasis added). Critical to our inquiry, the Wheeler Court found 

that, unlike the situation in Micheu, Hosford, Marriott, and Farnsworth, there had 

been no modification of the original decree because the trial court had denied the 

motion for an increase in maintenance. In this case, however, an agreed order 

decreasing Ted’s maintenance was entered in January 2014. Thus, the family court 

correctly applied the holding in Wheeler by using the date of the most recent 

modification order to determine whether Ted had demonstrated “changed 

circumstances so substantial and continuing” as to make the terms of the most

recent maintenance order unconscionable.

II. DID THE FAMILY COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN CONCLUDING 

THAT TED FAILED TO PROVE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES?

Next, Louisa argues that even if the family court used the proper 

measure, Ted clearly demonstrated the requisite change of circumstances such that 

the family court’s denial of his motion to terminate maintenance constituted an 
-7-

abuse of discretion. In explaining its basis for denying Ted’s motion, the family 

court noted that while Ted’s evidence supported his contention that his health had 

continued to deteriorate since the January 2014 modification, it did not support his 

contention that his deteriorating health had rendered him incapable of meeting his 

monthly maintenance obligation. The family court made specific reference to the 

fact that during this time Ted made a $155,293.98 down payment on a new 

residence, secured a loan of $750,000.00, and maintained two homes for over a 

year. As to the alleged unprofitability of Ted’s law practice, the family court 

found that, despite the contention that there was no cash flow available, Louisa 

testified that she withdrew almost $20,000.00 from the business account and 

placed it in her personal account to protect it from Margaret’s garnishment. She 

also admitted to providing a law office employee with a $1,000.00 bonus around 

the same time that Ted stopped making maintenance payments. Contrary to Ted’s 

contention that he would have retired and closed the law practice but for his 

maintenance obligation, the family court found that the law practice and unrepaid 

“loans” Louisa made to that entity provided them with substantial tax deductions 

over the years and allowed them the benefits of health insurance and other 

resources deductible as expenses to the firm. Most importantly, however, the 

family court found that nothing about the viability of the law practice had changed 

since the entry of the agreed modification order in 2014.
-8-

Furthermore, the family court found that at the time of the hearing 

Margaret was 79 years old, was in poor health having been diagnosed with chronic 

obstructive pulmonary disease and congestive health failure, and that she is also 

blind in one eye. The court found that in addition to the $2,800.00 maintenance 

payments, Margaret receives $974.00 per month in Social Security payments. 

Margaret offered proof that an investment account she received as an inheritance

had an opening balance in 2017 of $149,578.27 but due to Ted’s failure to make 

his monthly maintenance payments, she has withdrawn approximately $3,000.00 

per month to provide for her monthly expenses, reducing the value of the account

to $115,848.31 at the time of the hearing. Margaret’s 2016 Kentucky tax return 

showed an income of $30,865.00 with an adjusted gross income of $26,752.00. In 

April 2016, Margaret sold the marital residence she was awarded in the divorce for 

$545,000.00, using the proceeds to pay off the mortgage on that home and to 

purchase a smaller home for $304,000.00 cash. She used part of the remaining 

$62,305.19 in proceeds to remodel her new residence.

Finding that Margaret had a reasonable expectation of maintenance 

from the entry of the 2014 agreed order, the family court cited Barbarine v. 

Barbarine, 925 S.W.2d 831 (Ky. App. 1996), for its recognition of the fact that the

concept of maintaining relative stability underpins KRS 403.250’s stringent 

modification requirements. Pertinent to our review, Barbarine makes clear that:
-9-

Evidence for the movant must be compelling for the trial 

court to grant the relief requested; the policy of the 

statute is for relative stability. The determination of 

questions regarding maintenance is a matter which has 

traditionally been delegated to the sound and broad 

discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will 

not disturb the trial court absent an abuse of discretion. 

An appellate court is not authorized to substitute its own 

judgment for that of the trial court where the trial court’s 

decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Id. at 832 (citations omitted). Because we conclude that substantial evidence 

supported the family court’s finding that Ted failed to show changed circumstances 

since the 2014 order so compelling as to make the terms of that order 

unconscionable, we perceive no basis upon which we might set aside its denial of 

Ted’s motion to terminate maintenance.

III. DID THE FAMILY COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN 

FINDING TED TO BE IN CONTEMPT?

Turning now to the contention that the trial court abused its discretion 

with respect to contempt, Louisa cites Lewis v. Lewis, 875 S.W.2d 862 (Ky. 1993), 

for its holding that the power of contempt cannot be used to compel the doing of an 

impossible act. Based upon the same evidence that supported its denial of his 

motion to terminate his liability, the family court specifically found Ted’s

assertions that he could not satisfy his maintenance obligation unpersuasive. The 

family court was convinced that although Ted retained the ability to make his 

maintenance payments, he simply chose not to do so. Appellate courts review a 
-10-

trial court’s exercise of its contempt powers for abuse of discretion, Id. at 864, but 

apply the clear error standard to the underlying findings of fact. Blakeman v. 

Schneider, 864 S.W.2d 903, 905 (Ky. 1993). And, as this Court explained in 

Meyers v. Petrie, 233 S.W.3d 212 (Ky. App. 2007):

When a court exercises its contempt powers, it has nearly 

unlimited discretion. Smith v. City of Loyall, 702 S.W.2d 

838, 839 (Ky. App. 1986). Consequently, we will not 

disturb a court’s decision regarding contempt absent an 

abuse of its discretion. “The test for abuse of discretion 

is whether the trial [court’s] decision was arbitrary, 

unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal 

principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 

945 (Ky. 1999) (citations omitted).

Id. at 215. Meyers also explains that “[a]n individual who has refused to abide by 

a court’s order has committed civil contempt.” Id. (citing Newsome v. 

Commonwealth, 35 S.W.3d 836, 839 (Ky. App. 2001)). We perceive no abuse of 

the family court’s wide discretion in holding Ted in contempt. His unilateral 

termination of maintenance and interest payments coupled with his failure to 

provide an adequate legal basis for failing to comply with his obligation under the

2014 maintenance order and the 2005 order mandating interest payments clearly 

fall within the category of contemptuous conduct. 

IV. WAS THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES ERRONEOUS 

AS A MATTER OF LAW?

Finally, we come to the issue of attorney’s fees. The family court 

made two separate awards of attorney’s fees: 1) in the amount of $22,712.50 as an 
-11-

equitable sanction related to its finding of contempt; and 2) in the amount of 

$15,000.00 in prospective attorney’s fees under KRS 403.220. For the reasons that 

follow, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees related to the contempt award and 

affirm the award of fees under KRS 403.220.

In Seeger v. Lanham, 542 S.W.3d 286 (Ky. 2018), the Supreme Court 

of Kentucky clearly set out the circumstances under which an award of attorney’s 

fees is appropriate:

Under the American rule, “attorney’s fees in Kentucky 

are not awarded as costs to the prevailing party unless 

there is a statute permitting it or as a term of a contractual 

agreement between the parties.” [Bell v. Commonwealth,

423 S.W.3d 742, 748 (Ky. 2014)]. While attorneys’ fees 

are awardable as a sanction “when the very integrity of 

the court is in issue,” id. at 749 (emphasis original), “trial 

courts may not award attorney’s fees just because they 

think it is the right thing to do in a given case.” Id. at 

750.

 Thus, we take this opportunity to clarify that, 

without a sound basis in contract or statute, a trial court 

may not award attorneys’ fees. The trial court is still 

empowered to order a party to pay attorneys’ fees as 

a sanction, but only when the integrity of the court is 

at stake.

Id. at 295 (emphasis in bold added). It is clear from a reading of the family court’s 

order regarding the award of attorney’s fees as a sanction for contempt that it was 

exercising its equitable power to compensate Margaret for losses incurred by 

reason of Ted’s contemptuous conduct and not to vindicate its authority or 

integrity. 
-12-

We note that although “[t]he courts of the Commonwealth were 

previously empowered to award attorneys’ fees as an equitable measure, when, 

within the discretion of the court, it was deemed appropriate,” Seeger made clear 

that in “instances where attorney’s fees are appropriate as a sanction, it is not for 

the benefit of the individual plaintiff, but because there has been an intrusion on 

the very power of the court.” Bell, 423 S.W.3d at 749. Because the family court 

made no finding of any such intrusion on its authority or integrity, we reverse the 

award of attorney’s fees amounting to $22,712.50 as a contempt sanction.

Regarding the award of prospective attorney’s fees, however, we find 

no error. The family court determined that given Ted’s superior financial situation,

such an award was appropriate, citing Bosnan v. Bosnan, 359 S.W.3d 480 (Ky.

App. 2012), for its holding that attorney’s fees may be advanced under the 

authority of KRS 403.220 for the purpose of defending an appeal in a dissolution 

action. “[W]here the trial court exercises its discretion, its decision is reviewed for 

an abuse of discretion” and “‘[t]he test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial 

judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal 

principles.’” Weber v. Lambe, 513 S.W.3d 912, 915 (Ky. 2017) (citing Goodyear 

Tire and Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 581 (Ky. 2000)). The family 

court specifically found that Ted’s assets placed him in a superior position with 

regard to the prosecution of an appeal and that an award of prospective attorney’s 
-13-

fees was appropriate in order to allow Margaret to “fully and fairly litigate her 

case.” Nothing in that determination can be said to be “arbitrary, unreasonable, 

unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” As this Court emphasized in

Bosnan, “[i]f a party is denied attorney’s fees to defend or file an appeal, the 

purpose of KRS 403.220 would be negated by the party with superior financial 

ability to hire counsel at the appellate level.” 359 S.W.3d at 488.

Because this case is being remanded on the issue of attorney’s fees, 

we emphasize that nothing in our decision precludes the family court from 

reconsidering the amount of prospective attorney’s fees awarded under KRS 

403.220 and adjusting the amount awarded to ensure that the goal of its previous 

order allowing Margaret to “fully and fairly litigate her case” has been 

accomplished. Bosnan carefully explained this very concept:

We are aware that prospective attorney’s fees are 

inherently uncertain. However, as the Court in 

Neidlinger suggested, the family court retains jurisdiction 

to award incremental attorney’s fees.

As with reimbursement of fees already 

incurred, an assignment of prospective 

attorney’s fees rests in the sound discretion 

of the trial court. In the latter instance, 

however, this discretion must be even more 

carefully exercised. In awarding prospective 

attorney’s fees, the trial court should 

consider the possibility that the case might 

be settled or that the parties might reconcile 

before the awarded fee is actually earned. 

The statutory language “from time to time” 
-14-

anticipates the appropriateness in a 

particular case of requiring that the fee, 

whether prospective or already incurred, be 

paid in increments rather than in a lump 

sum. Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, 

supra note 3, § 313, at 450 (Official 

Comment).

Id. at 521. Additionally, we point out that after the 

appeal is completed, the family court retains the 

jurisdiction to alter its previous award, including 

reimbursement of any unjustified amounts awarded, 

including for a frivolous appeal or if attorney’s fees are 

no longer warranted because of the appellate decision.

Id. (emphasis added). That rationale applies equally to an award of additional fees.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, that portion of the order entered September 24, 2018, 

awarding attorney’s fees in the amount of $22,712.50 as a sanction for contempt is 

reversed and the case remanded for entry of an appropriate order. In all other 

respects, the orders of the Jefferson Family Court are affirmed.

ALL CONCUR. 

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Patrick J. Walsh

Newport, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:

Harold L. Storment

Louisville, Kentucky