Court Opinion

ID: 9775233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:50:55.759904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:23.899822
License: Public Domain

STEPHENSON, Justice,
dissenting.
An opinion that has as its authority CR 1(2), Scope of Rules, is an opinion to be reckoned with. I always thought the “special statutory proceedings, in which the procedural requirements of the statute shall prevail over any inconsistent procedures set forth in the Rules” applied to statutory proceedings such as election contest cases, Hodges v. Hodges, Ky., 314 S.W.2d 208 (1958), and the like, not to domestic relations cases that do not conflict with the Civil Rules.
The majority opinion has an internal contradiction. After citing CR 1(2) and finding this divorce proceeding is a special statutory proceeding and inconsistent with the Civil Rules, the opinion then cites KRS 403.-130(1), which makes the Civil Rules applicable to all divorce proceedings “except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” Nowhere in the majority opinion is there cited *900the inconsistency with this “special statutory proceedings” which would make the Civil Rules inapplicable. Also after invoking KRS 403.130(1) there is no showing where the statutes in question provide some other procedure than the Civil Rules.
Reading KRS 403.190 and KRS 403.200, I do not see any language which provides for any other procedure than that contained in the Civil Rules. KRS 403.190 states that the trial court shall assign each spouse’s property to him, then shall divide the marital property considering certain factors. There is no mention of the court making findings or directing any special procedure. Thus CR 52.04 should apply here as in other cases. After all, I see no reason why the parties could not waive a statutory right even if another procedure was provided.
CR 52.04 was adopted precisely to avoid situations like the one presented here.
The majority opinion represents a step backward. This court adopted CR 52.04 in 1974 to prevent arguing error in findings where no request to clarify the findings was made. We also adopted in 1974 RCr 9.54 requiring specific objections to instructions before the question can be heard on appeal. All of this is in accord with the contemporaneous objection rule applied generally. After all even constitutional rights can be waived by not objecting. We say generally we will not hear an argument that the trial court erred unless the trial court had an opportunity to pass upon the question.
The majority opinion is not logical in its reasoning, and the result is a real mischief maker for the future.
Therefore, I dissent.