Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-22-2024
Case Style:
In the Matter of the Marriage of S.P, and R.P.
Case Number:
Judge: Laura H. Lewis
Court: District Court, Ford County, Kansas
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Dodge City, Kansas family law lawyers represented the plaintiff and defendant in a divorce.
Modern divorce courts spring from the old courts of equity where the judges were guided by one principle: try to do what is right and fair under the circumstances. Modern divorce courts, awarding custody and dividing debts and property between two sparring marriage partners, still try to do what is right and fair under the circumstances.
* * *
S.P. (Father) and R.P. (Mother) married in 2017. They separated in 2022. The parties have one son, H.P., who was born in 2016. After separating, Father filed for divorce, claiming incompatibility. He also asked for the temporary custody of H.P. as well as child support from Mother. Mother answered the petition for divorce and filed a counter-petition for divorce. She asked for sole custody of H.P., that Father be limited to supervised visitation with H.P., and that he pay temporary child support.
Mother and Father presented evidence and testimony at a bench trial.
The record reveals tremendous conflict and animosity between Mother and Father. Father presented evidence and testimony from himself and Sheriff John Ketron. Mother also presented evidence and testimony from herself, as well as a nurse practitioner, the Director of H.P.'s daycare, H.P.'s therapist, and a neighbor. The evidence showed unequivocally that both parents struggled to communicate and cooperate with each other when rearing their son.
The parties submitted evidence of various instances where one party claimed neglect or abuse of H.P. by the other parent. These exhibits included photographs of various marks on H.P. or on Mother. She claimed these marks were the result of domestic violence by Father. Some photographs were sealed by the court because of the nature of the contents.
At the end of evidence, the trial court went through each factor under the statute governing custody and residency for minor children. The trial court concluded that joint legal custody was in H.P.'s best interests. Accordingly, the trial court adopted a shared custody plan where the parents are to exchange H.P. weekly. The court did not designate a residential custodian. The parenting plan ordered that the parties are to alternate weekly physical custody of H.P. every Thursday.
The trial court also ordered custody exchanges to occur at H.P.'s school when he's in school. When H.P. is not in school, the exchanges were to occur at the Clark County Sheriff's Department for Mother's time and the Meade County Sheriff's department for Father's time. The trial court stated that the reason for the exchange location was that it was the fairest way to resolve the current issues involving exchanges because the court did not "trust the two [parents] to go to each other's households and not have some kind of an incident that law enforcement has to get called to, anyway. So, this way, we're not wasting their resources."
In addition to finding the parties incompatible and in need of a divorce, the court summarized the factors that influenced its decision to order joint legal custody of the parties' son. The trial court ordered that Mother cease taking compromising photographs of H.P. Mother was not allowed to move to Oklahoma with H.P. Father was required to contact H.P.'s doctors and therapist and ensure that he was listed on H.P.'s records and able to obtain information from the individual healthcare providers.
The court tried to be fair in its equitable division of property and debts.
Mother and Father owned several tracts of real estate in Ashland, Kansas, and some land in Oklahoma. The parties' main residence during their marriage was in Ashland, Kansas. After the filing of the divorce, only Mother resided at that residence; Father resided in Fowler, Kansas. The parties agreed on the division of several pieces of personal property and real estate, but there were remaining issues the parties could not agree on.
The court observed that there was a vast difference in the parties' net worth after the division of property and debt. Father received property with an estimated value of $8,500. Mother received property value estimated to be worth $125,787. To make a division which was fair, just, and equitable under the law, the court found that an equity payment was needed. But Father testified at trial that he did not want any monetary equity payment-he "just wanted the court to order that [Mother] be responsible for all debts she caused to be acquired on joint assets that had previously no debt or had debt that had been paid off already."
The court heard claims of fraud.
Father testified at trial that while the divorce action was pending, he obtained his credit report and found reports of several credit cards that he had known nothing about. He also testified that Mother purchased a shed through Premiere Buildings in his name and took out multiple credit cards without his knowledge or consent. Father testified that he reported these fraudulent credit cards to Meade County Sheriff's Office and gave a voluntary statement. As a result, Father stated that two of the credit cards were found to be fraud and taken off his credit report. Because he claimed that he neither had knowledge of nor consented to take out credit cards in his name, Father asked the court to not order him to pay those debts.
Mother disputed Father's fraud claims. She testified that she did not forge Father's signature on any of the credit cards or loans. She also testified that Father had promised to pay the back taxes listed under her side of the debt list. Because of this, she thought the back taxes were paid. Mother also claimed that Father never contributed towards the household financially, testifying that she paid for all utilities, provided transportation for their son, bought all groceries, and paid H.P.'s medical bills.
In response, Father disputed Mother's testimony that he never contributed to household finances. He claimed that he did not have a checking account but would use his paychecks to pay for things such as vehicle expenses-insurance and payments- as well as the livestock bills, some utilities, and various things for Mother. Father also testified that both he and Mother shared the responsibility of buying groceries and that Mother basically took care of anything that she wanted on her own.
The court divided the debts and assets.
In the written order on the final division of property and debts, the trial court noted the list of factors on which a court should rely when dividing marital property and debts. K.S.A. 23-2801; K.S.A. 23-2802. The court also noted:
"[the]somewhat unique set of circumstances due to the fact that the parties own several pieces of real estate that do have monetary value, but have not provided the Court a clear picture as to where some of the property is located, how it was acquired and what value they are proposing be assessed to it."
Then, the trial court listed the assets and debts assigned to each party to:
"balance the necessity of making a fair, just and equitable division of property and debts that were acquired during the marriage by the parties with full consent of both parties, but also consider whether there is evidence to support fraud on the part of [Mother] in adding to the parties joint debt during the pendency of the divorce proceedings."
The trial court then found that "due to the fact that the Court is awarding [Mother] several items of real property both in Kansas and Oklahoma, she has significant resources that she should be able to either use as a collateral to refinance debt into her individual name and remove [Father's] and/or liquidate property to pay off debt." Additionally, the court noted that "there are a lot of values that are not known as to specific properties, exact debt amounts and uncertain dates of acquisition as the parties failed to provide documented evidence on these issues." Because of this failure to produce evidence of value, the court:
"was required to rely on the parties stipulated exhibits with estimated values for some properties, some deeds to property that has been signed over to various parties with an unclear history of the transactions and oral testimony based on the parties' 'best guesses' for lack of a better term. Given these facts, the [c]ourt acknowledges that the actual final net worth of the parties may not be as far apart as it appears in the [c]ourt's division."
Then, trying to do what was right, the court ordered Mother to make "reasonable efforts to refinance all of the debt set over to her in the property and debt division set forth in this order into her individual name and remove [Father's] name from all said debts within ninety (90) days." If, however, Mother is unable to refinance the debts into her name with Father's name removed within 90 days, then Mother is ordered to pay Father $18,984.25 as an equity payment.
The court specifically held that the order:
"[was] based on the age of the parties; the duration of the marriage; the property owned by the parties; their present and future earning capacity; the time, source and manner of acquisition of property; family ties and obligations associated with the items of property and debt and all other relevant factors in this matter."...
In re Marriage of S.P., 126,858 (Kan. App. Aug 16, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: