Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-25-2024
Case Style:
Troy Allen Horton v. Tareen Joy Horton
Case Number: 23-CI-1112
Judge: Kenneth H. Goff, II
Court: Circuit Court, Breckinridge County, Kentucky
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Hardinsburg, Kentucky family law lawyers represented husband and wife in a divorce.
Tareena Joy Horton ("Appellee") filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and motion for child custody in Jackson Circuit Court. Her husband, Appellant, was served but did not attend the custody hearing noticed for February 11, 2022.
The matter proceeded in Jackson Circuit Court, with a final hearing conducted on May 17, 2022. Appellant was not present at the hearing and was not represented by counsel. The Jackson Circuit Court rendered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree of dissolution on July 27, 2022.[1]
Various motions were filed, and hearings conducted, over the months that followed the entry of the decree. On October 3, 2022, the Jackson Circuit Court rendered an order finding that Appellant failed to abide by the decree, failed to cooperate on the sale of properties as ordered by the court, and failed to hand over a tractor to Appellee as so ordered. In order to facilitate the sale of certain real property, Appellee moved to transfer venue to Breckinridge County where the property was situated. On March 14, 2023, the Jackson Circuit Court entered an order transferring the action to the Breckinridge Circuit Court.
On June 14, 2023, Appellant filed a motion in Breckinridge Circuit Court to alter, amend, or vacate the decree of dissolution. In support of the motion, he argued that through mistake or inadvertence, the decree improperly characterized certain real property as marital. Appellant's motion cited deeds which predated the marriage as evidence that the property was non-marital.
In adjudicating the motion to alter, amend, or vacate the decree, the Breckinridge Circuit Court found that Appellant failed to advise the court that the property was mortgaged prior to the parties' November 6, 2005 marriage. It also found that the property had been repeatedly mortgaged during the parties' marriage. Citing Crawford v Crawford, 358 S.W.3d 16 (Ky. App. 2011), the Breckinridge Circuit Court determined that the Jackson Circuit Court properly characterized the property in question as marital because marital funds were used to pay the various mortgages during the marriage.
The Breckinridge Circuit Court went on to note that Appellant did not attend the May 27, 2022 final hearing. It found that he never filed a verified disclosure statement asserting any property claims, and that the court had to rely solely on the testimony of Appellee as to when various properties were acquired, the nature and amount of improvements, and the refinancing and payment of various mortgages. Based on these findings, the court denied Appellant's motion to alter, amend, or vacate the decree on this issue. The court corrected what it
characterized as an obvious typographical error in the decree, and otherwise overruled any pending motions filed by Appellant. This appeal followed.
* * *
Horton v. Horton, 2023-CA-1112-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Oct 25, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: