Court Opinion

ID: 9953543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 14:19:18.929443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:40.137343
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 15, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                              NO. 2023-CA-0825-MR

CLARK STANDARD AVENUE, LTD.
AND RESOURCE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT                                                          APPELLANTS

                APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.                 HONORABLE JULIE KAELIN, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 21-CI-007111

JA’NICE SMITH                                                           APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: GOODWINE, KAREM, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: This is a wrongful eviction case. Appellants are Clark

Standard Avenue, Ltd., and Resource Property Management (Landlords).

Appellee is Ja’nice Smith (Tenant). On December 17, 2021, Tenant filed a

complaint in this case in Jefferson Circuit Court alleging that Landlords

wrongfully: 1) entered her apartment; 2) believed it to be abandoned; 3) changed
the locks; 4) disposed of her personal property; and 4) caused her and her son

financial and emotional injuries as a result.

                The circuit court entered a default judgment, granted a motion to set

aside the default judgment, and then granted another motion to reinstate the default

judgment. The court held a hearing to assess damages pursuant to CR1 55.01, and

ultimately awarded Tenant approximately $40,000.00 in compensatory damages,

including attorney’s fees. In so holding, the court noted that it “finds the fact of

this case particularly egregious[,] and that “the mental and emotional toll this

eviction took on [Tenant] and her child were both awful and avoidable.”

                “Although default judgments are not favored, trial courts possess

broad discretion in considering motions to set them aside and we will not disturb

the exercise of that discretion absent abuse.” Howard v. Fountain, 749 S.W.2d

690, 692 (Ky. App. 1988) (citation omitted). Similarly, “the standard of review

regarding the amount of damages awarded is whether the trial court abused its

discretion[.]” Banker v. Univ. of Louisville Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 466 S.W.3d 456,

463 (Ky. 2015) (citation omitted). A trial court does not abuse its discretion unless

its decision is “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal

principles.” Miller v. Eldridge, 146 S.W.3d 909, 914 (Ky. 2004) (citation

omitted). See also Beauchamp v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 658 F. App’x

1
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                           -2-
202, 203 (6th Cir. 2016) (applying Kentucky law where property owner identified

incorrect property and proceeded to unlawfully “trash-out” tenants’ personal

items).

             Landlords’ argument is confined to a broad and unsupported claim

that the court abused its discretion in the amount of damages ordered. In

consideration of the applicable authority, record, and arguments presented, we

cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion here. Therefore, we affirm.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Bert M. Edwards                            Charles D. Matlock
Louisville, Kentucky                       Louisville, Kentucky

                                         -3-