Court Opinion

ID: 9760222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:43:26.840433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:09.416998
License: Public Domain

CLAYTON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s interpretation of KRS 403.250(1). The statute plainly says:
“[T]he provisions of any decree respecting maintenance or support may be modified only upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unconscionable.”. (Emphasis added).
In my opinion, the words “any decree respecting maintenance” do not mean only open end decrees but, rather, all maintenance decrees regardless of the payment terms or whether the trial court expressly reserved the power to modify.
I do not deny that finality to litigation is a strong competing interest. However, I think ensuring reasonable support for one with precarious financial security must hold sway even when the price is a subsequent court hearing. The standard for modification, unconscionability, is sufficiently difficult to meet so as to preclude modification awards except in the most extreme and deserving cases.
I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the McLean Circuit Court for a hearing on the issue of modification.