Picard v. Knight
2023-SC-0043-DG
Pulaski Circuit Court
Kentucky Supreme Court
Opinion by Justice Thompson
Date Rendered: October 24, 2024
Issue: Whether an offer of judgment pursuant to CR 68 is permissible in a family law matter.
Mother and Father litigated multiple issues including child support related to a shared child. Subsequent to a hearing and court order, Father sought attorney fees and costs from Mother pursuant to CR 68 as Father had previously made an offer of judgment. The Family Court denied Father’s motion concluding KRS 403.220 governed, and even if not, an offer of judgment was not appropriate as other issues besides child support were litigated contemporaneously with the child support issue. Father appealed and the Court of Appeals upheld the Family Court on alternate grounds. Father moved for discretionary review which the Supreme Court accepted.
The Supreme Court reviews de novo and holds that “CR 68 is preempted by KRS Chapter 403, and attorney fees and costs cannot be awarded in family court proceedings pursuant to CR 68.”
The Supreme Court, after reviewing both statutes and the history of the Kentucky no-fault divorce system, reaffirms that there are three ways a statutory scheme may exclude an inconsistent rule, “1) by implication, when the statutory scheme is set up as “special statutory proceeding” which by its very nature excludes inconsistent rules; (2) directly by the enactment of a specific statute which preempts inconsistent rules; or (3) simply as a matter of statutory construction in which substantive statutory law must prevail over any inconsistent procedural rules.” The Supreme Court holds that the wording of KRS 403.130(1) is properly interpreted to mean that the Civil Rules are preempted when inconsistent with KRS Chapter 403. In addition, mandatory CR 68 awards would undermine the goals of KRS Chapter 403 for family law matters to be resolved fairly and equitably.
Justice Nickell writes a separate concurrence, concurring in result only, arguing “a litigant cannot utilize the procedural offer of judgment rule to receive costs and fees which are otherwise unavailable under the controlling substantive law.” Father “cannot rely upon the procedural offer of judgment rule to obtain an award of costs and fees which he could not otherwise obtain under the substantive provisions of KRS 403.220.”
Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell