Court Opinion

ID: 9378415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 15:04:36.924317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:20.925656
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 3, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                   Commonwealth of Kentucky
                               Court of Appeals

                                  NO. 2022-CA-0088-MR

JAMES ADAM HAYNES                                                                APPELLANT

                  APPEAL FROM CALLOWAY CIRCUIT COURT
v.                    HONORABLE JILL CLARK, JUDGE
                          ACTION NO. 20-CI-00173

SABRINA D. HAYNES (NOW
KLOTZ)                                                                             APPELLEE

                                          OPINION
                                         AFFIRMING

                                        ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; JONES AND KAREM, JUDGES.

JONES, JUDGE: The Appellant, James Adam Haynes, appeals the portion of the

Calloway Circuit Court’s August 23, 2021, order increasing his monthly child

support obligation from $500.00 to $829.00.1 James asserts the trial court erred

1
  James also indicates that he is appealing the trial court’s denial of his Kentucky Rule of Civil
Procedure (“CR”) 59.05 motion to alter, amend, or vacate a judgment. However, orders denying
CR 59.05 motions are interlocutory and not subject to appellate review. Cabinet for Health and
Family Services v. Marshall, 606 S.W.3d 99, 103 (Ky. App. 2020). “Our case law is clear . . .
that there is no appeal from the denial of a CR 59.05 motion. The denial does not alter the
because it did not take into account the premiums he pays for the two children’s

health insurance as part of its calculations before setting his new child support

obligation as required by KRS2 403.211(7)(a). The Appellee, Sabrina D. Haynes

(now Klotz), counters that the trial court did not err because James failed to timely

present evidence regarding the amount he expends for the children’s health

insurance. Having reviewed the record and being otherwise sufficiently advised in

the law, we affirm.

                                      I. BACKGROUND

                James and Sabrina were divorced by a final decree entered by the

County Court at Law in Wichita County, Texas on October 31, 2012. At the time

of their divorce, the parties had two minor children, E.K. (born 2008) and C.J.

(born 2010). Pursuant to the Texas decree the parties were ordered to share joint

legal custody of the children. Sabrina was designated as the primary residential

parent with James having timesharing.3 James’s child support obligation was $500

per month.

judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is from the underlying judgment, not the denial of the CR
59.05 motion.” Ford v. Ford, 578 S.W.3d 356, 366 (Ky. App. 2019).
2
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.
3
 James was granted timesharing with the children during the first, third, and fifth weekends of
each month.

                                               -2-
               At the time of the divorce, James was living in Jonesboro, Arkansas,

and Sabrina and the children had relocated to Murray, Kentucky. On motion of the

parties, the Calloway Circuit Court registered the Texas divorce decree in

Kentucky in February 2021.4 In March 2021, James moved the Calloway Circuit

Court to modify timesharing to designate him the primary residential parent as

allegedly desired by the children, permit the children to relocate to Jonesboro,

Arkansas, to reside primarily with him, and order Sabrina to pay child support to

him if he was designated the primary residential parent.

               Sabrina responded to James’s motion by filing a countermotion to

modify timesharing and child support. For her part, Sabrina requested

modification of the timesharing arrangement to require James to exercise some of

his timesharing closer to Murray, Kentucky. She explained that the children were

now older and their frequent travel to Arkansas interfered with their extracurricular

activities. Noting that child support had not been altered since 2012, Sabrina

requested the trial court to review child support based on the parties’ current

incomes and if more than a 15% deviation existed to modify it according to

Kentucky’s child support guidelines. Sabrina attached proof of her current income

4
 KRS 426.955 (“A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures,
defenses and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a court of this state
and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.”).

                                               -3-
to her motion. She further averred that she was unaware of James’s current

income.

             In July 2021, with the prior motions still pending, Sabrina filed

another, more detailed motion regarding child support. Sabrina attached her pay

stubs and tax returns to her motion in addition to a draft child support worksheet

completed by her counsel. According to the draft worksheet, Sabrina’s monthly

gross income is $3,733.00 and James’s monthly gross income is $4,931.66.

Notably, Sabrina left section 9 of the worksheet, which asks for the amounts the

parties contribute to the children’s health insurance premiums or cash medical

support, blank. She further handwrote a “?” mark in the far right-hand column of

section 9, indicating that she was unsure of the amounts James expended on health

insurance premiums for the parties’ two children. According to Sabrina’s

calculations, James’s current child support obligation should be $825.36.

             On August 9, 2021, the trial court held a hearing for the purpose of

receiving testimony and proof related to timesharing and child support. Much of

the hearing focused on the timesharing issue, and James concedes that he failed to

offer any proof at the hearing regarding the amounts he contributes each month for

the children’s health insurance premiums.

             Two days after the hearing, James filed four exhibits that his counsel

asserted were “documentation of health insurance costs paid by [James] for the

                                         -4-
minor children.” The first documents are James’s bi-weekly pay stubs for the three

periods immediately preceding the hearing: 1) June 20, 2021 to July 3, 2021,

showing that $345.28 was deducted from James’s paycheck for insurance; 2) July

4, 2021 to July 17, 2021, showing that $345.28 was deducted from James’s

paycheck for insurance; and 3) July 18, 2021 to July 31, 2021, showing that

$345.28 was deducted from James’s paycheck for insurance. The paycheck stubs

do not indicate what type of insurance is at issue or for whom the coverage applies.

The other document is a printout addressed to Haag Brown LLC, James’s

employer; it contains a chart labeled “ABCBS Metallic Plan-ABCBS Gold 1000

Elite.” The chart lists various age bands from 0-14 to 64+. Beside each band is a

sum denoted as “Total Monthly Health Cost.” It is unclear whether the “total

monthly” cost is the cost to the employee or the total cost to the employer. James

did not include an affidavit explaining the documents with his filings.

             On August 23, 2021, the trial court entered an order on the parties’

pending motions to modify timesharing and child support. With respect to

timesharing, the trial court denied James’s motion to become the children’s

primary residential parent. As to child support, the trial court ruled as follows:

             The parties have stipulated [James’s] income is $59,000
             ($50,000 salary and $9,000 farming) and [Sabrina’s]
             income is $44,000. [James] now pays child support in
             the amount of $500 per month. Neither party submitted
             proof of health insurance payments for the children.
             Effective March 9, 2021 (date [James] requested child

                                         -5-
            support modification) [James] shall pay [Sabrina]
            $829.00 per month in child support. (See attached chart).

Record (R.) at 153.

            On September 1, 2021, James filed a CR 59.05 motion to alter,

amend, or vacate the trial court August 23, 2021, order. On October 3, 2021,

James filed a memorandum with the trial court in support of his CR 59.05 motion.

As related to child support, James argued:

            11. KRS 403.211(7)(a) states in relevant part “[i]f health
            care coverage is reasonable in cost and accessible to
            either parent at the time the request for coverage is made,
            the court shall order the parent to obtain or maintain
            coverage, and the court shall allocate between the
            parents, in proportion to their combined monthly
            adjusted parental gross income, the cost of health care
            coverage for the child, in addition to the support ordered
            under the child support guidelines (emphasis added).

            12. “In common or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary
            signification, the term ‘shall’ is a word of command
            and . . . must be given a compulsory meaning.” Bevin v.
            Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear, 563 S.W.3d 74, 89 (Ky.
            2018); citing Vandertoll v. Commonwealth, 110 S.W.3d
            789 (Ky. 2003).

             ....

            35. KRS 403.211(7)(a) makes it compulsory upon the
            Court to factor into a child support calculation and
            allocate between the parents, in proportion to their
            combined monthly adjusted parental gross income, the
            cost of health care coverage for the child. No evidence
            of health insurance coverage paid by [James] for the
            children was provided during the hearing. Regardless,
            because the statute states that the trial court “shall”

                                        -6-
            allocate between the parents the cost of health care
            coverage for the children in proportion to their combined
            monthly adjusted gross income, to arrive at an accurate
            child support amount for the paying party, the trial court
            has an obligation to inquire as to any health insurance
            coverage paid by either parent.

            36. Following the hearing but prior to entry of the
            Court’s Order, proof of health insurance coverage costs
            paid by [James] was filed with this Court without
            objection or response from [Sabrina]. [James] pays
            $475.86 each month for the children at issue in this
            matter. This amount must be factored into the child
            support calculation and proper credit given to [James] for
            the health insurance coverage costs he pays monthly.

            37. Based on the agreed upon income of the parties and
            including the health insurance coverage costs paid by
            [James], the child support amount to be paid by [James]
            should be $626.13 each month. A Kentucky Child
            Support Worksheet is attached.

R. at 172-83.

            On October 14, 2021, Sabrina filed a response in objection to James’s

CR 59.05 motion. As related to child support, Sabrina argued:

            With regard to child support, the application of the health
            insurance costs cannot be included in this case. This
            hearing, that included a child support motion, was
            properly noticed, and [James] had every opportunity to
            present this evidence at the hearing where he could be
            cross-examined. A request was never made to leave the
            record open for supplementation. The documents later
            filed by [James], after the hearing had concluded, were
            not listed on [James’s] exhibit list or properly provided to
            [Sabrina] through discovery. The Court cannot consider
            evidence that was not presented at the hearing.
            Additionally, the insurance cost documentation provided

                                        -7-
             is not self-explanatory and the costs that [James] lists in
             his Motion do not reconcile with the insurance costs
             reflected on his pay stubs. If the Court, over objection, is
             going to allow the insurance costs to be included,
             [Sabrina] would request the opportunity to cross-examine
             [James] regarding the costs and be required to provide
             more sufficient documentation.

R. at 186-87.

             On December 20, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying

James’s CR 59.05 motion as to child support as follows:

                    [James] is correct, this Court shall consider
             payment of insurance when calculating child support.
             Unfortunately, [James] chose not to present any proof of
             insurance payments during the August 9, 2021 hearing.
             [James] did file a piece of paper after the hearing
             supposedly showing payment of insurance by [James].
             [James] is incorrect in stating this Court must consider
             inadmissible evidence. The authenticity is not evident on
             the face of the document and [Sabrina] had no
             opportunity to cross examine [James] on this claim.

                    Therefore, the Court’s order of $829.00 per month
             child support effective March 9, 2021, shall stand. Any
             arrearage accrued by [James] shall be paid at the rate of
             $200 per month with interest at the rate of 6% per
             annum.

R. at 199.

             This appeal by James followed.

                                   II. ANALYSIS

                James spends the majority of his brief discussing KRS

403.211(7)(a)’s requirement for the trial court to consider health insurance

                                         -8-
contributions as part of its child support calculations. However, James fails to

appreciate that the trial court can only consider what the parties put before it as

evidence. Here, James failed to present any evidence at the hearing regarding his

contributions toward the children’s health insurance even though he clearly had

notice that child support was one of the issues to be determined at the hearing.

              While James filed the documents after the hearing, the trial court is

correct that they were not properly authenticated. Equally problematic, James did

not include a sworn affidavit explaining the documents with his filings. The

paycheck stubs showed the total amount that James’s employer withheld from his

bi-weekly paychecks for “insurance” but did not breakdown what portion of this

amount was allocated for coverage of the two children. Since James and his

current wife also have children, that amount presumably provides coverage for

more than the two children at issue. Additionally, the age-band printout does not

make clear whether the quoted amounts are the employee’s portion of the health

insurance coverage or the total amount of coverage.

              “A trial court has broad discretion in controlling its docket[.]”

Augenstein v. Deutsche Bank National Tr. Company as Tr. for Certificateholders

of Soundview Home Loan Tr. 2005-OPT4, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-

OPT4, 647 S.W.3d 857, 863 (Ky. App. 2021). The trial court set a hearing on

child support. The parties received notice of the hearing and were ordered to file

                                          -9-
their lists of witnesses and exhibits in advance of the hearing. Despite being aware

that child support was at issue, James did not file a list of exhibits. Additionally,

James did not offer any testimony or exhibits at the hearing related to insurance. It

was incumbent on him to do so if he wished the trial court to take that information

into consideration prior to ruling on the motions. The trial court was not required

to accept the unauthenticated documents after the hearing or to convene a new

hearing for the purpose of allowing James to submit the documents. This is not a

case of the trial court failing to abide by the statute, it is a simple case of James

failing to present the proper evidence to the trial court at the proper time.

             In sum, while the statute requires a trial court to consider insurance

premiums when calculating child support, the trial court is not required to leave the

record open in perpetuity. Since no evidence was properly entered for the trial

court to consider, it did not abuse its discretion.

                                   III. CONCLUSION

             For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the August 23, 2021, order

of the Calloway Circuit Court.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                       BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

 Chris Hendricks                             Alisha Kay Bobo
 Murray, Kentucky                            Bradly A. Miller
                                             Paducah, Kentucky

                                          -10-