 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
White v. White3/28/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION AFFIRMING
Melissa White appeals and Anthony (Tony) White cross-appeals from a decree of the Franklin Family Court dissolving their marriage. Melissa contends that the trial court awarded Tony too much non-marital property and awarded her too small an attorney fee; Tony maintains that he was unfairly saddled with a mortgage debt. Persuaded that the property and fee awards and the debt assignment were all within the trial court's discretion, we affirm.
In 1991 an automobile accident left Tony partially paralyzed. His claims for damages were still outstanding in July 1993, when he and Melissa married. At the time of the marriage, Melissa was about twenty-four years old and Tony was about twenty-three. The couple's child, Tony, Jr., was born in 1994. In 1995 Tony settled his injury claims and received net awards of approximately $300,000.00. Apparently this money was initially lodged in certificates of deposit (cds), but in short order the couple purchased a three-unit apartment, a residence, and various furnishings. Thereafter, until they separated in August 1999, they met their expenses with income from Tony's part-time work, interest on the cds, Tony's disability benefits, rental income from the apartments (which Melissa managed), and Melissa's income from baby-sitting and office cleaning. They also borrowed about $50,000.00 against the equity in the residence. Their expenditures during that period included the purchase of two cars.
Melissa petitioned for dissolution of the marriage in August 1999. The trial court ruled that Tony's settlement was his non-marital property and that likewise those assets traceable to the settlement, primarily the cds and the realty, were his. It awarded Melissa her car and half of the marital equity in the residence (according to the trial court's calculation only about $600.00). The court also awarded custody of Tony, Jr., to Melissa and ruled that, as a sort of quasi-maintenance, she could live in the residence until Tony, Jr., turned eighteen, provided she made the mortgage payment and maintained the property.
Melissa contends that the realty the couple purchased should have been deemed marital property and divided equally. In support of this contention, she argues that Tony's settlement, at least a portion of it, should be deemed marital as compensation for lost marital income. She concedes that in Weakley v. Weakley our Supreme Court ruled to the contrary. The Court there held that personal injury awards for pre-marital injuries are non-marital property regardless of how the damages are characterized and regardless of when the award is received. Although Melissa would have us overrule Weakley as unwise, this Court has no authority to disregard, much less to overrule, decisions by our Supreme Court. Therefore, we have no authority to change the law as requested by Melissa.
Melissa next argues that even if Tony's settlement was initially his non-marital property, the realty at least should be deemed marital, as it was Tony's gift to the marriage. This argument is based on the fact that the cds and realty were purchased in both parties' names with right of survivorship. Also, the couple apparently considered a pre-nuptial agreement disavowing any claim by Melissa to Tony's settlement, but then did not execute such an agreement. Melissa claims that their decision not to enter an agreement evidences Tony's intention to give her an interest in the settlement. The trial court refused to make that leap, however, and ruled instead that Tony's intention had only been for Melissa to have the property if he predeceased her during the marriage. We agree.
Record title, of cou
Page 1 2 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|