Court Opinion

ID: 9366603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 15:04:07.939789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:53.853301
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JANUARY 20, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals

                              NO. 2021-CA-0365-MR

STEPHEN WILLIAM BARALT                                                APPELLANT

                  APPEAL FROM SPENCER CIRCUIT COURT
v.                HONORABLE S. MARIE HELLARD, JUDGE
                         ACTION NO. 13-CI-00201

MELISSA MITCHELL BARALT                                                 APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                   ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: DIXON, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: The parties in the present case were divorced by decree of the

Spencer Circuit Court, Family Division, in 2015. They had minor children at the

time. According to Appellant’s brief, he alleged over 1,000 individual instances of

contempt of the underlying litigation. He suggested to the trial court in various

orders that he be awarded over $100,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and that
Appellee rectify her alleged parental alienation by submitting herself to counseling

and written apologies to the children.

             In a handwritten order entered on January 26, 2021, the family court

stated that all issues relating to attorneys’ fees, contempt, etc., were previously

determined pursuant to the court’s December 7, 2020 docket order. However, the

order further states that the motions for contempt and attorneys’ fees were not

preserved and that the court had previously determined all issues relating to the

parties’ children were moot. It is undisputed that the children are now adults. In

another handwritten docket order entered on March 2, 2021 the court stated that

the January 26, 2021 order is final and appealable. Appellant appeals from that

order as a matter of right. For the following reasons, we affirm.

                                     ANALYSIS

                   When a court exercises its contempt powers, it has
             nearly unlimited discretion. 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.

Meyers v. Petrie, 233 S.W.3d 212, 215 (Ky. App. 2007) (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted). Appellant cites to numerous portions of the record where

he filed motions for contempt. However, he has not raised any specific instance of

alleged contempt or cited to any substantive ruling for this Court to review. It

                                          -2-
appears that his general argument is that the family court did not adequately

address his various motions, and that it also failed to do so in a timely manner. In

any event, considering the immense discretion afforded the circuit court and the

record presented, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion here.

Therefore, we affirm the Spencer Circuit Court.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

W. Steven Middleton                        Kevin P. Fox
Frankfort, Kentucky                        Frankfort, Kentucky

                                         -3-