Court Opinion

ID: 9366613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 15:04:27.465384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:53.871589
License: Public Domain

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                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2021-CA-1239-MR

JAMES “JIM” REYNOLDS                                                 APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE JEFFREY L. PRESTON, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 09-CI-00930

DIANA K. REYNOLDS                                                      APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; DIXON AND GOODWINE, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: James Reynolds appeals from an order of the

Greenup Circuit Court which denied his motion to alter an order which awarded

Diana Reynolds certain retirement benefits. Finding no error, we affirm.

                   FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            Appellant and Appellee were married on July 20, 1985. Appellee

filed a petition for divorce on December 4, 2009, and a decree of dissolution of
marriage was entered on September 23, 2010. The decree awarded Appellee one-

half of the amount of Appellant’s retirement plan accumulated between the dates

of marriage and divorce.

             Following the decree, a number of orders were entered in order to

facilitate Appellee receiving her share of the retirement benefits. One such order

stated that Appellee was to receive a “Former Spouse Survivor Annuity under the

Civil Service Retirement System in the same amount to which [she] would have

been entitled if the divorce had not occurred.” This order indicates that Appellee

would be entitled to an annuity that contains amounts earned after the divorce.

That order was entered on November 1, 2010.

             On November 23, 2010, Appellant, through counsel, filed a motion

requesting that the court amend the former spouse survivor annuity order.

Appellant requested that the court amend the order to state that if Appellee were to

receive such an annuity, it would only affect monies due to Appellee between the

date of the marriage and divorce. In other words, Appellant argued that Appellee

would not be entitled to any money she would receive in such an annuity after the

date of the divorce.

             Appellant and Appellee were then in and out of court for various

reasons for over two and a half years. During this time, Appellant’s motion to

amend was never ruled upon by the court or raised again by the parties. Finally, on

                                        -2-
July 28, 2021, Appellant filed another motion seeking to amend the former spouse

annuity order. Appellant had just retired and was informed that Appellee would be

entitled to this annuity.

             A hearing was held on the motion on September 14, 2021. During the

hearing the trial court heard testimony from Appellant and arguments from

counsel. On October 6, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying Appellant’s

motion. The court held that it did not believe it retained jurisdiction to amend an

order after eleven years. The court also ruled, in the alternative, that it was not

convinced the order was entered in error. This appeal followed.

                                     ANALYSIS

             We believe the trial court was correct in that this motion was not

timely filed. The order Appellant sought to amend was entered on November 1,

2010. The first motion seeking to amend that order was filed on November 23,

2010. The next motion seeking to amend that order was filed July 28, 2021.

Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 52.02 and CR 59.05 both allow an order

to be amended within ten days after entry of the order. The first motion Appellant

filed to amend the order on appeal was filed more than ten days after entry of the

                                          -3-
order. The second motion was filed over ten years later. Neither of these motions

were timely under CR 52.02 or CR 59.05.1

                                      CONCLUSION

              The trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motions to amend

the November 1, 2010 order because they were not made in a timely manner.

              ALL CONCUR.

    BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                        NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEE.

    James W. Lyon, Jr.
    Greenup, Kentucky

1
  We note that no argument has been made regarding the trial court vacating the allegedly
incorrect order pursuant to CR 60.02.

                                              -4-