Court Opinion

ID: 9955745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 14:14:47.355881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:19.805134
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 22, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2022-CA-1378-MR

TIMOTHY O’KEEFE                                                      APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT
v.             HONORABLE MONICA K. MEREDITH, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 20-CI-00627

ANGELA MARIE O’KEEFE                                                    APPELLEE

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

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

ACREE, JUDGE: Appellant, Tim O’Keefe, appeals the Bullitt Circuit Court’s

October 24, 2022 Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law awarding

Appellee, Angela O’Keefe, $500 in maintenance per month for a period of five

years. Finding no error, we affirm.

            Tim and Angela are not strangers to this Court. In the parties’ first

appeal, we summarized the history of their marriage as follows:
                       Tim and Angela were married on October 23, 1999,
                in Jefferson County, Kentucky. At the time of their
                divorce, Angela was 47 years old and employed as a
                clerical assistant for the Bullitt County Public Schools.
                She also worked as a weekend bartender at a golf course.
                Although she was employed as a mortgage loan processor
                prior to the parties’ marriage, during the marriage, she was
                out of the workforce, acting as a “stay at home” mom
                during the minority of the parties’ two children. In
                addition, she has an associate degree in computer
                information systems and a certificate in medical billing.
                Tim was 55 years old and worked for the Kentucky
                Transportation Cabinet as a field technician. He also
                worked a second job as a basketball referee. He has no
                education beyond his high school diploma.

O’Keefe v. O’Keefe, No. 2021-CA-0486-MR, 2022 WL 627218, at *1 (Ky. App.

Mar. 4, 2022). Tim appealed from the family court’s initial findings of fact,

conclusions of law, judgment, and decree of dissolution. Id. He challenged the

amount of Angela’s non-marital property award, her maintenance award, and her

attorney’s fees award. Id. Because the family court’s findings were deficient as to

each issue Tim raised on appeal, we remanded the matter for further findings. Id.

at *3. As relevant to the present appeal, we determined the family court had failed

to make the required findings under KRS1 403.200(1) when it awarded $500 per

month in maintenance to Angela for a period of ten years. Id. at *2.

                On remand, the family court entered its Additional Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law on October 24, 2022. The family court ruled in favor of

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.

                                            -2-
Tim on two issues. First, the family court concluded that, though Angela had

applied nonmarital funds to the purchase of the marital residence, she had not met

her burden of proving the increase in value of the residence was nonmarital.

Second, the court determined neither party engaged in unduly burdensome or

obstructive actions sufficient to require one party to pay the attorney’s fees of the

other.

             Though the family court left Angela’s maintenance award of $500 per

month in place, the court reduced the period of the award from ten years to five.

Unsatisfied, Appellant now appeals.

             The maintenance award is the lone issue Tim raises in this appeal.

“While the award of maintenance comes within the sound discretion of the trial

court, a reviewing court will not uphold the award if it finds the trial court abused

its discretion or based its decision on findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.”

Powell v. Powell, 107 S.W.3d 222, 224 (Ky. 2003) (citations omitted). A trial

court has abused its discretion if its “decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair,

or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v.

Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 581 (Ky. 2000) (citing Commonwealth v. English, 993

S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999)). A trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous

if substantial evidence – that is, evidence of “sufficient probative value to induce

conviction in the mind of a reasonable person” – does not support them. Sewell v.

                                          -3-
Sweet, 637 S.W.3d 330, 334 (Ky. App. 2021) (quoting Hunter v. Hunter, 127

S.W.3d 656, 659 (Ky. App. 2003)).

            KRS 403.200 governs maintenance awards. That statute provides:

            (1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal
                separation, or a proceeding for maintenance following
                dissolution of a marriage by a court which lacked
                personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse, the court
                may grant a maintenance order for either spouse only
                if it finds that the spouse seeking maintenance:

                (a) Lacks sufficient property, including marital
                    property apportioned to him, to provide for his
                    reasonable needs; and

                (b) Is unable to support himself through appropriate
                    employment or is the custodian of a child whose
                    condition or circumstances make it appropriate
                    that the custodian not be required to seek
                    employment outside the home.

            (2) The maintenance order shall be in such amounts and
                for such periods of time as the court deems just, and
                after considering all relevant factors including:

                (a) The financial resources of the party seeking
                    maintenance,     including     marital      property
                    apportioned to him, and his ability to meet his
                    needs independently, including the extent to
                    which a provision for support of a child living with
                    the party includes a sum for that party as
                    custodian;

                (b) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education
                    or training to enable the party seeking
                    maintenance to find appropriate employment;

                                        -4-
                 (c) The standard of living established during the
                     marriage;

                 (d) The duration of the marriage;

                 (e) The age, and the physical and emotional condition
                     of the spouse seeking maintenance; and

                 (f) The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance
                      is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of
                      the spouse seeking maintenance.

KRS 403.200. The family court must find both KRS 403.200(1)(a) and (b) are met

before it can consider the factors listed in KRS 403.200(2). Wattenberger v.

Wattenberger, 577 S.W.3d 786, 787-88 (Ky. App. 2019) (citing Shafizadeh v.

Shafizadeh, 444 S.W.3d 437, 446 (Ky. App. 2012)). “Under this statute, the trial

court has dual responsibilities: one, to make relevant findings of fact; and two, to

exercise its discretion in making a determination on maintenance in light of those

facts.” Perrine v. Christine, 833 S.W.2d 825, 826 (Ky. 1992).

             Tim argues the circuit court’s findings under both KRS 403.200(1)(a)

and (b) were insufficient. We disagree. As to KRS 403.200(1)(a), the family court

stated specifically that Angela lacked sufficient property, including marital

property apportioned to her, to provide for her reasonable needs. The family court

stated it arrived at this conclusion upon consideration of her reported income and

expenses. Further, the court attributed this deficiency to Angela’s loss of earnings

and experience as a result of her absence from the workplace. The family court

                                         -5-
made adequate findings as to Angela’s inability to provide for her reasonable

needs.

             As to KRS 403.200(1)(b), the family court determined Angela was

“unable, at this time, to support herself through her own employment[.]” Record

(R.) at 955 (emphasis added). Tim asserts, “based on knowledge and belief,”

Angela has improved her situation between the family court’s original ruling and

its supplemental ruling. Appellant’s Brief at 2. He therefore argues it is no longer

the case that Angela is unable to support herself, and that the family court should

have permitted additional discovery or conducted further proceedings on Angela’s

ability to provide for herself following remand.

             However, these were not the instructions we provided to the family

court on remand. We did not require it to conduct any additional hearings or take

additional evidence. Instead, we “vacate[d] and remand[ed] the matter to enable

the trial court to make the requisite findings” from the evidence it considered

before the first appeal. O’Keefe, 2022 WL 627218, at *2. The family court

followed these instructions. It examined the evidence of record and determined

Angela could not support herself through her employment alone.

             Under neither prong of KRS 403.200(1) did the family court fail to

make requisite findings. These findings are not clearly erroneous because

substantial evidence supports them. And the family court’s conclusions under this

                                         -6-
portion of the analysis – that Angela is unable to provide for her reasonable needs

and that she is unable to support herself through appropriate employment – were

not arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.

Therefore, the family court did not abuse its discretion in reaching these

conclusions.

               Tim also challenges the family court’s application of KRS 403.200(2),

arguing the court failed to specifically address the statutory factors. We disagree.

Like a trial court’s decision to award maintenance, “[t]he amount and duration of

maintenance is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Weldon v. Weldon,

957 S.W.2d 283 (Ky. App. 1997) (citing Russell v. Russell, 878 S.W.2d 24, 26

(Ky. App. 1994)).

               Upon review of the family court’s findings, we conclude the court

carefully considered the circumstances of the parties’ marriage in deciding what

amount of maintenance to award Angela and for how long. It considered the

duration of the parties’ marriage, their ages, their physical condition, Angela’s

ability to obtain additional training in order to bolster her income, the parties’

financial condition, and Tim’s ability to pay maintenance.

               Tim argues the family court focused on Tim earning higher wages

during the marriage, which is not one of the KRS 403.200(2) factors. However,

Tim’s greater ability to earn income is directly relevant to KRS 403.200(2)(f):

                                          -7-
Tim’s ability to meet his own needs while providing maintenance to Angela.

Further, as the statute plainly states, the family court was required to consider all

relevant factors including, but not limited to, those the statute furnishes.

Therefore, it was not contrary to law for the family court to have considered the

parties’ relative wages during the marriage.

             Our review reveals no reversible error by the family court regarding

the amount and duration of the maintenance award. Because the family court’s

decision was not arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal

principles, we cannot say the family court abused its discretion in awarding Angela

$500 per month for five years. And because substantial evidence supports the

family court’s factual findings, its findings are not clearly erroneous.

                                   CONCLUSION

             Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Bullitt Circuit Court’s October

24, 2022 Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

 Kirk Hoskins                               Allison Spencer Russell
 Louisville, Kentucky                       Louisville, Kentucky

                                          -8-