We are honored to be regularly invited by the Louisville Bar Association to give the Annual Domestic Relations Case Law Update. Each year, we are asked about the most important case of the year. In this series, we look back at the cases we have cited as “the most important.” If you are more interested in learning about family law general topics, consider checking out our divorce basics series. If you are interested in the most recent case law, just check out what is new on our blog.
After rendering a custody decision in favor of mother, the trial court ordered father to pay mother’s attorney’s fees pursuant to KRS 403.220. The trial court made its decision after considering the father’s annual income of $32,000.00, the mother’s annual income of $41,000.00, and the father’s lack of candor and cooperation which led to the accrual of many of the fees. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court decision, determining that no disparity of income existed between mother and father’s income to justify an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to KRS 403.220.
The mother petitioned the Supreme Court for discretionary review, arguing that the plain language of KRS 403.220 does not require a financial imbalance for an award of attorney’s fees, but only requires the court to consider the financial resources of both parties in determining if attorney’s fees should be awarded. Overturning forty-years of precedent, the Supreme Court held that KRS 403.220 does not require that a financial disparity must exist for the trial court to order one party to pay a reasonable amount of the other party’s attorney’s fees in a dissolution of marriage action. However, the Court noted that financial disparity “is still a viable factor for trial courts to consider in following the statute and looking at the parties’ total financial picture.”
The Supreme Court found that the trial court acted within its discretion when assessing attorney’s fees against father after giving consideration to the parties’ financial resources and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Digested by: Emily Cecconi