RENDERED: APRIL 12, 2024; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2022-CA-0855-MR

JASWINDER SINGH APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE JOSEPH W. CASTLEN, III, SPECIAL JUDGE 

ACTION NO. 18-CI-00379

HARVINDER KAUR APPELLEE 

AND

NO. 2022-CA-0990-MR

HARVINDER KAUR CROSS-APPELLANT 

v. 

CROSS-APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE JOSEPH W. CASTLEN, III, SPECIAL JUDGE

ACTION NO. 18-CI-00379

JASWINDER SINGH CROSS-APPELLEE 
-2-

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, GOODWINE, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

LAMBERT, JUDGE: Jaswinder Singh appeals from the findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and decree of dissolution entered by the Daviess Family Court. 

His former wife, Harvinder Kaur, cross-appeals from same. After careful review 

of the extensive record before us, the briefs, and applicable law, we affirm. 

Factual and Procedural Background

The parties were born in India. Jaswinder immigrated to the United 

States in 1996, and lived in the New York/New Jersey area with his two brothers, 

Satnam and Kulwant. Jaswinder married shortly after arriving in the United States, 

but the marriage lasted only a few months. He married again and the couple 

moved to Owensboro, Kentucky, in 2003, along with Satnam and Kulwant. 

Jaswinder and his second wife purchased a new home, and Kulwant and his wife 

moved in. The brothers owned and operated numerous businesses in the 

Owensboro area, which will be discussed in depth later in this Opinion. Satnam 

was deported in 2007, but later legally immigrated to Canada, where he still 

resides.

Jaswinder’s second wife died in 2013. Shortly thereafter, he created a 

profile on an Indian dating website. He first communicated with Harvinder’s 
-3-

brother, who gave Jaswinder permission to begin communicating with Harvinder. 

Jaswinder made a trip to India in December 2013, where he met Harvinder for the 

first time. Jaswinder described to Harvinder and her family the various gas 

stations and convenience stores he owns and operates in the United States, and 

showed them photographs of same. During the same trip, Jaswinder and Harvinder 

became engaged. 

Although Jaswinder returned to the United States after their 

engagement, the couple kept in communication and Jaswinder made return trips to 

India. On February 15, 2015, the couple married in India. However, Harvinder 

was unable to obtain a visa for entry into the United States, so she remained in 

India. Jaswinder agreed to sponsor and support Harvinder and signed a document 

with the Department of Homeland Security agreeing to fully support her for 10 

years or until she became a United States citizen or obtained full-time employment. 

With Jaswinder as her husband and sponsor, Harvinder was able to move to the 

United States in June 2016.

Shortly after Harvinder’s arrival, Kulwant and his wife moved to the 

Seattle, Washington, area to be closer to Satnam, in Canada. Even though Satnam 

and Kulwant were no longer in the Owensboro area, they continued to own and 

operate various businesses which were left in the hands of Jaswinder. Harvinder 

took care of Jaswinder’s two children from his previous marriage and was a 
-4-

homemaker. Jaswinder worked long hours at the various gas stations and 

convenience stores. 

The parties’ marriage began to sour in late 2017. In March 2018, 

Jaswinder met with an attorney who drew up what was essentially a post-nuptial 

agreement in which Harvinder agreed she would relinquish all interest in any 

business or property owned by Jaswinder, any maintenance, and any right of 

inheritance from Jaswinder. She refused to sign the agreement. In April 2018, 

Jaswinder forced Harvinder to leave the marital home with no clothes, money, or 

possessions.1 Her cellular telephone service was cancelled within minutes. A 

friend took Harvinder into her home, where she has since remained. Jaswinder 

filed for divorce shortly thereafter.

The proceedings before the family court were extensive and 

contentious. Jaswinder presented himself as impoverished and with few assets. 

Harvinder focused on her efforts to unravel Jaswinder’s numerous business 

dealings and entanglements with his brothers, as well as their many complicated 

financial transactions, in an attempt to prove that Jaswinder owned considerably 

more assets than he let on to the family court. After the conclusion of 

approximately twenty-three hearings, countless hours of which were devoted 

1

Jaswinder also obtained an emergency protective order (EPO) against Harvinder on the day she 

was forced to leave the marital home. This was the second of two EPOs Jaswinder obtained; 

however, both were dismissed and no domestic violence order was entered at any time.
-5-

solely to the issue of temporary maintenance, entry of a final order was delayed 

until appointment of a special judge, who then had to review the extensive record. 

A final order and decree were entered on April 19, 2022. Jaswinder filed a motion 

for additional findings and to vacate certain portions of the decree. The family 

court granted Jaswinder’s motion in part, and entered amended findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and a decree of dissolution on July 1, 2022. The family court 

made thirty-three pages of findings in its amended order. It awarded Harvinder 

$230,000.00 as her share of a Valero gas station purchased by Jaswinder from his 

brother Kulwant during the marriage; ordered Jaswinder to pay her medical bills 

acquired during the marriage and before Harvinder became a United States citizen; 

and ordered Jaswinder to pay Harvinder’s attorney’s fees in the amount of 

$44,167.50. Harvinder was not awarded permanent maintenance, nor any portion 

of the equity in the marital home. Both parties appealed. Further facts will be 

developed as necessary.

Standard of Review

Both parties appeal from the division of marital assets and debt. 

Questions of whether property or debt is marital or 

nonmarital are left to the sound discretion of the trial 

court, as is the equitable division of any marital property, 

and will be reviewed for abuse of discretion, namely, 

whether the decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, 

or unsupported by sound legal principles.
-6-

Rice v. Rice, 336 S.W.3d 66, 68 (Ky. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). 

However, the case at bar is unique in that Jaswinder not only argues 

the Valero gas station is not marital property, but that it in fact does not now and 

has never at any time belonged to him; rather, it has always belonged solely to his 

brother, Kulwant. We will set aside the family court’s findings only if they are 

clearly erroneous (i.e., not supported by substantial evidence). Moore v. Asente, 

110 S.W.3d 336, 354 (Ky. 2003) (footnote omitted). “[S]ubstantial evidence is 

[e]vidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion and evidence that, when taken alone or in the light of all the evidence, 

. . . has sufficient probative value to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable 

men.” Id. (internal quotation marks and footnotes omitted).

Finally, Jaswinder’s appeal of the award of attorney’s fees is reviewed 

for an abuse of discretion. Allison v. Allison, 246 S.W.3d 898, 909 (Ky. App. 

2008) (citation omitted).

Analysis

We begin by quoting the family court:

Jaswinder and his brothers have operated numerous 

businesses involving millions of dollars of transactions 

and more than likely have taken unreported cash out of 

operations in large sums over many years. It is most 

difficult to attempt to untangle the web they have sewn. 

There are no financial written records except basic tax 
-7-

returns which are destroyed [after three years] and 

prepared [only] on the basis of verbal information 

provided to their accountant.

We cannot overemphasize these points enough as we begin our 

analysis. Jaswinder has, by design with his brothers, woven a tangled web of 

business and financial transactions as to avoid scrutiny by any person or entity, 

including the family court, this Court, and taxing authorities. This has been 

accomplished, in part, through the creation of countless corporations with the 

Kentucky Secretary of State. Some of these corporations own real estate and 

businesses associated with the real estate, but some of the businesses operate on 

real estate that is leased. Others are businesses opened for the sole purpose of 

running another business; others do not appear from the record before us to operate 

any business at all. Some are owned by Jaswinder alone, others only by his 

brothers, and some are owned with his brothers. 

Jaswinder and his brothers routinely buy and sell businesses amongst 

themselves and with other non-family members, but there are no paper trails 

whatsoever of these transactions. They do not keep financial records or receipts, 

including for the businesses that are operating gas stations and convenience stores. 

Their accountant prepares tax returns based solely on Jaswinder’s oral 

representations and bank statements. Those tax returns are promptly destroyed 

after three years. The tax returns that were obtained by Harvinder show the gas 
-8-

station/convenience store businesses have millions of dollars in gross receipts, yet 

Jaswinder insists he is impoverished and barely getting by.

The family court found the testimony of Jaswinder and his brothers to 

be completely without credibility, in part, because it did not reflect the reality of 

Jaswinder’s lifestyle. “[D]ue regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial 

court to judge the credibility of the witnesses because judging the credibility of 

witnesses and weighing evidence are tasks within the exclusive province of the 

trial court.” Moore, 110 S.W.3d at 354 (internal quotation marks and footnotes 

omitted). Although the family court made extensive findings related to each of the 

businesses and significant financial transactions, we decline to reiterate those 

findings herein. Instead, we highlight only a few to demonstrate the family court 

did not abuse its discretion and that its findings were supported by substantial 

evidence. 

We now turn to Jaswinder’s first argument. He claims he does not 

own the Valero gas station at issue; therefore, it is not marital property subject to 

division by the family court and, even it is, the family court failed to value the 

asset by any proof other than the testimony of Harvinder. We disagree.

Kulwant purchased the Valero gas station in 2013 for $40,000.00. 

Desiring to renovate and make it an operable gas station and convenience store, 

both Kulwant and Jaswinder applied for a loan for $77,100.00 in July 2014. An 
-9-

affidavit from the loan agent contained in the record before us shows that 

Jaswinder stated he was a partner in the following corporations: GNDJ, Inc., Jai 

Shreehardi, Inc., JASN, LLC, JMND, Inc., and SBN, Inc. However, at the time, 

only GNDJ, Inc. was still in existence and operated a gas station and convenience 

store at 30 Bon Harbor Hills Road. The affidavit also states that Jaswinder listed 

his total assets as $595,000.00, with $50,000.00 of that being cash, and his total 

liabilities as $100,000.00. Jaswinder put his home up as collateral for the loan, 

which was ultimately approved. Shortly thereafter, Kulwant opened a corporation 

called Mr. Rattan, Inc. Only Kulwant’s name was contained in the articles of 

incorporation. He also opened a bank account under the name of Mr. Rattan, Inc. 

Although Jaswinder’s name is not listed in the articles of incorporation, his name 

was listed as an owner of the bank account. 

In 2015, another loan was obtained for the Valero gas station in the 

amount of $154,801.00. Although the loan was in Kulwant’s name, Jaswinder 

provided a commercial guaranty. The proceeds from the loan were deposited into 

the Mr. Rattan, Inc. bank account. Jaswinder wrote and signed all checks, for all 

business purposes, from the Mr. Rattan, Inc. bank account from 2016 until 2019. 

After being questioned about ownership of the account during his deposition in 

2019, Jaswinder asked Kulwant to remove his name from the bank account. Now 
-10-

Jaswinder still writes all the checks, but signs them using a rubber stamp with 

Kulwant’s signature. 

In September 2016, Kulwant and his wife moved to the Seattle, 

Washington area. Harvinder testified that days before the move, she, Jaswinder, 

Kulwant, and his wife had a meeting at the home of Jaswinder and Harvinder. She 

stated they discussed the Valero gas station and that it was worth $1.3 million, and 

Jaswinder and Kulwant each owned an equal share valued at $650,000.00. It was 

decided that Jaswinder would purchase Kulwant’s share. Jaswinder then retrieved

$128,000.00 in cash from his safe in the home and gave it to Kulwant. Another 

$190,000.00 was to come from Satnam as reimbursement for money owed to 

Jaswinder. Afterward, Jaswinder continued to send money to Kulwant for the 

purpose of purchasing the business. Harvinder testified to one instance she knew 

about when he sent an additional $25,000.00 and another when he sent $75,000.00. 

She testified that, as a result, Jaswinder became owner of the Valero gas 

station/Mr. Rattan, Inc. 

Jaswinder emphatically denies the meeting with Kulwant ever 

occurred and denies the existence of a safe containing cash in his home. He does 

acknowledge that, in October 2017, he formed the corporation Rattan Properties, 

Inc. with the goal of purchasing the Valero gas station/Mr. Rattan, Inc. from 

Kulwant. Although he had always used his home address to form corporations in 
-11-

the past, he used the address of his accountant to form Rattan Properties, Inc. As a 

result, all paperwork concerning this business was mailed to the accountant and not 

the marital home. Jaswinder testified in his deposition that he sent Kulwant 

$2,000.00 per month for the first three or four months of 2018 towards the 

purchase of the Valero gas station/Mr. Rattan, Inc. before he decided not to 

purchase it after all. Strangely, Jaswinder testified that he took the money from the 

Mr. Rattan, Inc. bank account, deposited it into the Rattan Properties, Inc. bank 

account, and then sent the money to Kulwant by check. In other words, if we are 

to believe Jaswinder’s version of events, then Jaswinder was taking Kulwant’s 

money, putting it in Jaswinder’s account, then using the same money towards 

Jaswinder’s purchase of Kulwant’s business. This is simply nonsensical. Further, 

Kulwant never returned any of the money to Jaswinder after Jaswinder decided not 

to purchase the Valero gas station/Mr. Rattan, Inc. 

Even though “on paper” Kulwant still owns Mr. Rattan, Inc., the 

Valero gas station, and the associated bank account, he does not, and has never, 

received any income from the business. Jaswinder is in charge of every aspect of 

its operation on a daily basis. This convoluted manner of doing business is 

consistent with how Jaswinder and his brothers operate their various companies 

and engage in dealings with one another. For example, Satnam testified that he 
-12-

took out a loan on a piece of real property he owns in Owensboro.2 This property 

was formerly a nightclub called the Yellow Rose, but was abandoned before 

Satnam purchased it.3 Jaswinder signed documents for Satnam as his power of 

attorney to obtain a loan for $140,000.00 using the Yellow Rose as collateral. The 

brothers testified the money was actually intended for Kulwant to purchase a home 

near Seattle and Satnam did give the loan proceeds to Kulwant. However, when 

Kulwant received the money, he sent it to Satnam. When asked why he did not 

keep the money to purchase a home as intended, Kulwant’s response was that it 

was his money and he could do whatever he wanted with it. Again, the shuffling 

around of large sums of money between the brothers in this manner defies logic.

The evidence and record before us show that Jaswinder is paid 

$200.00 per week from the Mr. Rattan, Inc. bank account for operating the Valero 

gas station. His personal tax returns reflect this meager salary. Jaswinder is also 

compensated in other ways from Mr. Rattan, Inc. for his operation of the Valero 

gas station. His first and second mortgages are paid through Mr. Rattan, Inc., as 

2 The family court made detailed findings about the nature of Satnam’s purchase of the Yellow 

Rose as further illustration of how the brothers do business which lent itself to the family court’s 

determination that they were not credible witnesses. Satnam testified he did not need a loan to 

purchase the property for $210,000.00, but rather used his own funds that various friends and 

family members were “holding” for him.

3 The Yellow Rose is still not a functioning business. There was one potential tenant, but the 

lease was never finalized. The family court had suspicions that Jaswinder also owns an interest 

in the Yellow Rose because he is the point of contact for all matters, but in the end could not 

confirm its suspicion via substantial evidence. 
-13-

well as his cellular telephone bill and automobile gasoline. Jaswinder does not 

claim this compensation on his personal tax returns. He also receives Social 

Security benefits each month for his children due to the death of their mother. 

Because his salary is so low, Jaswinder is entitled to numerous tax credits and 

often receives thousands of dollars in refunds each year. However, rather than take 

the tax refunds each year for the shortfalls he claims to have for living expenses, he 

applies the amount towards taxes for the following year. Jaswinder’s low salary 

also means both he and his children receive Medicaid health insurance benefits.4

The family court did not find credible Jaswinder’s testimony that his 

only income is $200.00 per week. It questioned why Jaswinder would continue to 

operate these businesses for years on end for such meager compensation.5 We 

agree with the family court’s determination. Jaswinder was able to obtain a loan 

with his brother, Kulwant, based on financial representations made to the bank that 

do not reflect the impoverished life Jaswinder tries to present. Both Jaswinder and 

Harvinder testified about numerous trips to India during the marriage for one or 

4 Even though he married Harvinder in 2015, Jaswinder filed taxes that year as a widower 

claiming two children. When pressed about the issue, both Jaswinder and his accountant 

testified he could not file as married because Harvinder was still in India in 2015 and did not 

have a Social Security number. No one questioned the accountant about whether Jaswinder 

could have obtained an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) for Harvinder in place of a 

Social Security number so that he could have filed his taxes as married in 2015.

5 At a hearing on February 25, 2019, counsel argued that Jaswinder works 40 to 60 hours per 

week at the Valero gas station. If true, he is being paid anywhere from $3.33 per hour to $5.00 

per hour, considerably below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
-14-

both of them, and also at least one trip to Canada with the children. Both parties 

also testified that Jaswinder sent approximately $25,000.00 to Harvinder’s family 

in India during the short marriage. Also damaging to Jaswinder’s credibility about 

his financial situation is the fact that he sold another business, JMND, Inc. during 

the marriage. Although Jaswinder estimated he received approximately 

$26,000.00 for the sale in 2016, there is no paperwork for the transaction, and it 

does not appear on any tax return or as a deposit to any bank account. Even if

Jaswinder received only $26,000.00 for the sale, the proceeds were income in 

addition to his $200.00 per week earnings that went wholly unrecorded and 

unreported. The family court found that Jaswinder “wants for nothing” and lives a 

very comfortable life for a person supposedly earning just $200.00 per week. 

Stated differently, the numbers simply do not add up in terms of Jaswinder’s stated 

income versus his lifestyle.

Finally, there is another gas station/convenience store that, for the 

sake of simplicity, will be referred to as Bon Harbor.6 Bon Harbor is operated by a 

company called GNDJ, Inc. GNDJ, Inc. does not own the real estate associated 

with the gas station, which is leased from a third party.7 Narinder Kumar is a 

6

“Bon Harbor” is another Valero gas station located at 30 Bon Harbor Hill Drive in Owensboro, 

Kentucky.

7 The lease agreement was signed by Jaswinder. 
-15-

friend and business associate of Jaswinder, Satnam, and Kulwant who testified on 

January 21, 2021. Initially, Narinder testified that he owned GNDJ, Inc. with 

Satnam, but purchased Satnam’s share in early 2016.8 However, his testimony 

changed shortly thereafter, and he stated that Satnam never owned a share of 

GNDJ, Inc. and that he in fact purchased Jaswinder’s share of the company in early 

2016 for $150,000.00.

9

 Jaswinder denied ownership of GNDJ, Inc. Rather, he 

stated his name was added only so that he could run the company, which was 

owned by Satnam and Narinder, until Narinder purchased Satnam’s share. 

However, 2015 tax returns indicate Jaswinder owned 100% of GNDJ, Inc. 

The distribution of funds received from Narinder for the purchase of 

GNDJ, Inc. is another source of confusion. Narinder initially wrote a check to 

Jaswinder for $50,000.00, but Jaswinder testified that, because this was really 

Satnam’s money and Satnam wanted the money to go to Kulwant for reasons that 

are unexplained, Jaswinder signed the check then gave it to Kulwant, who then 

sent the check to Satnam. Then, some months later, Kulwant sent Satnam the other 

$100,000.00 owed from Narinder. Again, this convoluted method of exchanging 

large sums of money is nonsensical.

8

See page 14 of hearing transcript from January 21, 2021.

9

See pages 15 and 19 of hearing transcript from January 21, 2021.
-16-

Moreover, although Jaswinder claims GNDJ, Inc. really belonged to 

Satnam, Satnam’s name never appeared on any paperwork or bank account 

associated with the business and he never received compensation from the business 

with the exception of possibly proceeds from its sale. Satnam testified he never 

reported the proceeds of the sale of GNDJ, Inc. on any tax return. Although the 

family court determined that it could not conclude from the evidence how much of 

GNDJ, Inc. was owned by Jaswinder during the marriage, the extremely confusing

– and sometimes conflicting – testimony of Jaswinder, his brothers, and Narinder 

Kumar further damaged their credibility. 

The family court found Harvinder’s testimony regarding the Valero 

gas station/Mr. Rattan, Inc. credible. It believed that Jaswinder initially owned 

50% of the business and made a finding that Jaswinder purchased the other 50% 

from Kulwant for $650,000.00 in 2016. However, $190,000.00 of that amount was 

some sort of credit owed to Jaswinder from either Satnam, Kulwant, or both. 

Because the family court could not determine if this credit arose during or prior to 

the marriage, it deducted the amount. Therefore, the family court found the marital 

interest of the Valero gas station to be $460,000.00 (or $650,000.00 minus 

$190,000.00).10 

10 Jaswinder points out that the original judge in this action made a finding that the Mr. Rattan, 

Inc./Valero gas station was owned by Kulwant, not Jaswinder, in an order entered on December 
-17-

Jaswinder argues the Valero gas station and the associated business of 

Mr. Rattan, Inc. is not marital property because it does not now and has never 

belonged to him. The family court found otherwise. “Substantial evidence is 

evidence, when taken alone or in light of all the evidence, which has sufficient 

probative value to induce conviction in the mind of a reasonable person.” Hunter

v. Hunter, 127 S.W.3d 656, 659 (Ky. App. 2003) (emphasis added) (citations 

omitted). In light of all the evidence demonstrating how Jaswinder and his 

brothers conduct business and pass large sums of money amongst themselves, we 

decline to disturb the family court’s finding that Jaswinder owns the Valero gas 

station and the associated Mr. Rattan, Inc. as a result of a transaction that occurred 

in September 2016. 

Jaswinder also argues that, even if the business is marital property, the 

family court failed to assign a value to it based on anything other than Harvinder’s 

testimony. We note that, although Harvinder never filed a formal motion to 

appoint a forensic accountant or conduct a business appraisal, the possibility was 

discussed at several hearings that appear in the record before us. Each time the 

issue came up, Jaswinder voiced a strong objection and stated that he would refuse 

20, 2019. However, this order was in regard to temporary maintenance and the family court 

continued to hear evidence over the next three years until a final order was entered. 
-18-

to pay for or participate in any such undertaking.11 The issue was never pressed by 

the family court and the only evidence of the value of the company is Harvinder’s 

testimony regarding a conversation and financial transaction for which she was 

present. That is enough. The family court’s findings are supported by substantial 

evidence.

Jaswinder then argues that, even if he does own an interest in the 

Valero gas station/Mr. Rattan, Inc., the family court failed to consider Kentucky 

Revised Statute (KRS) 403.190(1)(a)-(d), which provides

(1) In a proceeding for dissolution of the marriage or for 

legal separation, or in a proceeding for disposition of 

property following dissolution of the marriage by a 

court which lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent 

spouse or lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the property, 

the court shall assign each spouse’s property to him. It 

also shall divide the marital property without regard to 

marital misconduct in just proportions considering all 

relevant factors including:

(a) Contribution of each spouse to 

acquisition of the marital property, 

including contribution of a spouse as 

homemaker;

(b) Value of the property set apart to each 

spouse;

(c) Duration of the marriage; and

(d) Economic circumstances of each spouse 

when the division of property is to become 

11 See hearings that occurred on May 19, 2019, and September 9, 2019.
-19-

effective, including the desirability of 

awarding the family home or the right to 

live therein for reasonable periods to the 

spouse having custody of any children.

Jaswinder’s argument is refuted by the record. The family court 

considered and made findings related to each of the factors present in KRS 

403.190(1)(a)-(d). With regard to the first factor, despite Jaswinder’s argument 

that Harvinder contributed absolutely nothing to the marriage, the family court 

found that, although Jaswinder developed most of the businesses prior to marrying 

Harvinder, she contributed as a homemaker by caring for his two children, 

maintaining the home, and occasionally working as a clerk in the convenience 

store. The family court also considered the value of the property awarded to each 

party, including the home and various businesses awarded to Jaswinder. 

Regarding the third and fourth factors, the family court acknowledged the brief 

duration of the marriage. It also found that, despite what Jaswinder reports as his 

income to the IRS, it is significantly greater. Harvinder, on the other hand, is in 

poor health, unable to work long hours, and reliant on her friend for many 

necessities. 

The family court also considered other aspects of Harvinder’s 

situation. Jaswinder has lived in the United States since 1996 and Harvinder has 

been here only since 2016. She was enticed to marry Jaswinder, in part, through 

statements made and photographs shown to her family regarding successful 
-20-

businesses owned by Jaswinder. Unlike Jaswinder, Harvinder has no family here. 

Her English skills were poor, but are improving. Jaswinder did not allow her to 

drive a vehicle and restricted her to primarily staying in the home. The family 

court did not abuse its discretion in its distribution of marital property.

Before we proceed to Jaswinder’s remaining arguments, we address 

the only argument made by Harvinder on her cross-appeal, which is that she should 

have received half of the equity in the home, which was awarded entirely to 

Jaswinder. It is undisputed that Jaswinder owned the home prior to his marriage to 

Harvinder. The parties also agree that the home is worth approximately 

$211,000.00 and is encumbered by a first and second mortgage which together 

total approximately $81,400.00. Harvinder argues she is entitled to half of the 

equity of the home and that she should not be penalized for the home being used as 

collateral for the loan for the Valero gas station. She lived in the home for a very 

short time due to the short duration of the marriage and, furthermore, the family 

court emphasized that the bulk of property awarded to Harvinder was coming from 

the purchase of the Valero gas station/Mr. Rattan, Inc. business during the 

marriage. After careful review and consideration of the factors provided in KRS 

403.190(1)(a)-(d) as discussed infra, we cannot say the family court abused its 

discretion by not providing Harvinder half of the equity of the marital home. 
-21-

Jaswinder also argues the family court abused its discretion by 

ordering him to pay medical debt acquired by Harvinder during the marriage. We 

disagree. It is undisputed that, prior to Harvinder’s arrival in the United States, in 

2015 or 2016, Jaswinder signed a document with the Department of Homeland 

Security as Harvinder’s sponsor, promising to support her financially at least 125% 

above the federal poverty level for 10 years or until she became a United States 

citizen or worked full-time. The medical bills incurred by Harvinder occurred in 

2017 and 2018. She did not become a U.S. citizen until November 2019, and she 

has never worked full-time. Moreover, Harvinder did not have Medicaid benefits 

when the medical bills were incurred. It was not an abuse of discretion for the 

family court to assign Harvinder’s medical debt to Jaswinder.

Finally, Jaswinder argues the family court abused its discretion by 

ordering him to pay Harvinder’s attorney fees. KRS 403.220 provides that

[t]he court from time to time after considering the 

financial resources of both parties may order a party to 

pay a reasonable amount for the cost to the other party of 

maintaining or defending any proceeding under this 

chapter and for attorney’s fees, including sums for legal 

services rendered and costs incurred prior to the 

commencement of the proceeding or after entry of 

judgment. The court may order that the amount be paid 

directly to the attorney, who may enforce the order in his 

name.

Although the statute requires the family court to consider the financial 

resources of the parties when deciding whether to award attorney’s fees, it is not 
-22-

required to make specific findings in that regard. See, e.g., Miller v. McGinty, 234 

S.W.3d 371, 374 (Ky. App. 2007). It is obvious from the findings of fact entered 

by the family court that the disparate financial resources of the parties were

extensively considered. Interestingly, Jaswinder argues the family court did not 

consider that he paid Harvinder over $39,000.00 in temporary maintenance during 

the pendency of this action. Jaswinder presents himself as impoverished and in 

dire financial straits when it suits him (e.g., to the IRS, to Medicaid authorities, to 

the family court in order to prevent an award of any property or finances to 

Harvinder); but on the other hand, emphasizes his assets when it suits him (e.g., to 

acquire a loan or to show Harvinder and her family his successful businesses in the 

United States). He also points out how much money he has provided to Harvinder 

(e.g., by way of temporary maintenance; as well as how much money he sent to her 

family in India during the marriage) when it suits him. This selective presentation 

of facts further damaged Jaswinder’s credibility to the family court.

The contrast in financial resources of the parties is stark, to say the 

very least, and the family court found accordingly. Harvinder’s counsel submitted 

a detailed accounting of her hours over the very long duration of this case. The 

family court considered it and awarded attorney’s fees to Harvinder. The family 

court did not abuse its discretion.
-23-

Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, the findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

and decree of dissolution of the Daviess Family Court is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT/CROSSAPPELLEE JASWINDER SINGH:

David L. Yewell

Owensboro, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE/CROSSAPPELLANT HARVINDER KAUR:

Cheryl Cureton Spalding

Owensboro, Kentucky