Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-15-2024
Case Style:
Ashley Nicole Harney v. Stuart Austin Harney
Case Number: 21-CI-00464
Judge: Jeffrey C. Moss
Court: Jassamine County, Circuit Court, Family Court Division,
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Nicholasville, Kentucky family law lawyers represented husbamd and wife in a divorce action involving minor children.
Ashley and Stuart Austin Harney (Austin) were married May 26, 2013, and had two children, C.N.H. and M.A.H. Ashley filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the Bourbon Circuit Court, Family Court Division, on March 30, 2015. The parties resolved all issues relevant to the dissolution, and a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) was entered on April 22, 2015. Thereafter, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decree of Dissolution (Decree) were entered on July 22, 2015. The parties' MSA was incorporated by reference into the Decree. Pursuant to the MSA, Austin, who was struggling with substance abuse issues, agreed to Ashley's being awarded sole custody of their children and being designated the primary residential parent. Austin was awarded time-sharing every other weekend and one weekday. Austin was ordered to pay child support of $422 per month to Ashley.
* * *
And, in Olson v. Olson, 108 S.W.3d 650 (Ky. App. 2003),[3] this Court held that pursuant to KRS 403.211(6), the amount allocated for the cost of childcare is "in addition to the amount ordered under child support guidelines." Olson, 108 S.W.3d at 652 (quoting KRS 403.211(6)). The Olson Court further noted that the allocation of childcare costs is akin to a prepayment or a reimbursement of a portion of the actual cost incurred by the other party. Olson, 108 S.W.3d at 652. And, if the childcare expense was not actually incurred the other party is entitled to be reimbursed the amount of the over payment. Id.
Harney v. Harney, 2022-CA-1202-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Nov 15, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: