2024-CA-1369-MR
Marshall Circuit Court
Kentucky Court of Appeals
Opinion by Judge Thompson
Date Rendered: September 12, 2025
Husband and Wife married in 1993 and lived in Kentucky for many years. They separated in early 2022, and Husband relocated to Pennsylvania in April of that year. More than a year later, in September 2023, Wife filed for dissolution of the marriage in Kentucky. Attempts to serve Husband through the Secretary of State were unsuccessful, but a warning order attorney sent the petition to his Pennsylvania address, where a “Jane Motter” signed for the receipt. Husband did not appear, and in May 2024 the court entered a decree dissolving the marriage and dividing the marital estate. The trial court awarded Wife the marital home, her accounts, and a vehicle, while Husband was awarded his accounts, another vehicle, a $12,000 annuity, a boat, and various firearms. The court also credited Wife with having paid $11,000 in marital debts.
A few months later, Husband made a special appearance solely to contest jurisdiction. He moved to set aside the judgment, arguing that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction under KRS 454.220, which allows Kentucky courts to exercise jurisdiction in family law cases involving property division and support, but it contains a one-year limitation: the action must be filed within a year of the respondent spouse leaving the state. Because he left Kentucky in April 2022 and the case was not filed until September 2023, Husband argued that the court’s jurisdiction had expired. The trial court rejected this argument, holding that KRS 454.220 did not apply and instead relying on Kentucky’s general long-arm statute, KRS 454.210, which permits jurisdiction over those with an interest in Kentucky real property.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that KRS 454.220, not KRS 454.210, governs when Kentucky courts seek to divide marital property in a divorce case involving a nonresident spouse. The Court explained that while the trial court tried to limit the term “distributive award” to certain nonmarital payments, the plain meaning of the term includes any division or distribution of marital property. Because the General Assembly has not defined “distributive award,” the Court turned to dictionary definitions and prior case law, particularly Jeffrey v. Jeffrey, where property division was expressly tied to KRS 454.220. The Court concluded that distributing marital assets and debts falls within the statute.
The opinion also emphasized the principle that when a general statute and a specific statute appear to overlap, the specific statute controls. KRS 454.210 is Kentucky’s general long-arm statute, but KRS 454.220 is a long-arm statute tailored specifically for family law matters. Accordingly, the one-year filing requirement in KRS 454.220 applied, and because Wife filed more than a year after Husband left Kentucky, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to divide the marital property. The Court of Appeals noted that even under the version of KRS 454.210 in effect at the time, jurisdiction would have been limited only to claims arising directly from Kentucky real property, not to bank accounts, vehicles, or other assets.
Digested by Nathan R. Hardymon