Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-18-2024
Case Style:
Heather Kimmel v. Michael Benjamin Kimmel
Case Number: 2-=CI-168
Judge: Doreen S. Goodwin
Court: Family Court, Oldam County, Kentucky
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
LaGrange, Kentucky family law lawyers represented husband and wife in a divorce.
These parties have had a lengthy and contentious divorce proceeding. In 2020, they entered into an agreed settlement which was incorporated into a final divorce decree. However, that agreement did not put an end to their many disputes. The parties share two minor children, and the record reveals that Heather became employed as a "trauma therapist" following their divorce. This employment has largely consisted of her recording podcasts and posting on social media about her prior trauma and related experiences. Those activities led Michael to request the family court to order Heather to remove social media posts that pertained to and/or disparaged him.
In response, Heather did not deny the posts but argued that her TikTok account, "Triumph over Trauma" was her business and this business focused on helping others involved in relationships with narcissistic personalities. In further response to the motion, Heather denied the children had any access to her social media accounts and essentially pledged to not use Michael's name or to reference their past relationship in the future. In September 2022, the family court ruled on Michael's motion with an order specifically instructing Heather to remove
social media posts in which she referenced her ex-husband by name, inference, or otherwise, so as to make him easily identifiable.
Several months later, Michael filed this motion for contempt asserting that Heather was continuing to violate the order and requesting attorney fees as a sanction. Thereafter, both parties had changes in representation and other motions were filed and noticed for subsequent dates. However, a hearing was scheduled for October 19, 2023, and both parties appeared, although Heather was unrepresented.
At that hearing, the discussion centered around the motions scheduled to be heard that day as opposed to other motions which would be heard at a later date. Following discussion and review of the record, the family court asked if the parties agreed that the only motions to be heard were the contempt motion filed by Michael and a motion by Heather to set child support. The parties appeared to agree with this assessment, and testimony proceeded.
Michael testified Heather continues to disparage him on TikTok, referring to her "abusive ex-husband"; "domestic violence in her prior marriage"; and her "narcissistic ex." Michael testified she had only ever been married to him, thus making him identifiable to others in the community. He also claimed that at times you could hear the children's voices in the background. After considerable technical difficulties, Michael played some of the videos for the court. He primarily based his testimony upon a spreadsheet he had prepared regarding more
than 362 posts on TikTok. For her case, Heather did not deny the videos but simply stated she did not use his name and the children could not hear her posts, even though the children could be heard in the background on at least a couple of the recordings played for the court. Heather also defended that Michael's actions had "triggered" her into making some of the postings, and she did not believe they were in violation of the earlier order since she did not use his name.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the family court asked Michael's counsel for an affidavit of her fees. Counsel indicated she did not have it but would provide one. The family court gave her seven days to do so. We have reviewed the entire record on appeal and did not locate any affidavit or fee bill/invoice for Michael's attorney. The motion itself did not include any amount for fees, and there was no testimony about fees at the hearing.
On February 27, 2024, the family court issued an order finding Heather in contempt for violating the September 2022 order. The court noted that its focus was not only on preventing acquaintances of the parties from reading or hearing the posts which rendered Michael identifiable, but also on protecting the children. The court specifically found that the children could be heard in the background while Heather was talking about her ex-husband. The order further awarded child support (which is not a subject of this appeal), and ordered Heather
to pay $1,800.00 in Michael's attorney fees, for her contempt. This appeal followed.
* * *
Kimmel v. Kimmel, 2024-CA-0379-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Oct 18, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: