 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Holbrook v. Holbrook3/4/2005
AFFIRMING
Natalie Holbrook appeals from a judgment of the Bell Circuit Court of November 23, 2003, dissolving her marriage to the appellee, Kenneth Holbrook. She argues that the trial court erred in classifying proceeds from a personal injury settlement as Kenneth's non-marital property. She also contends that the trial court erred in dividing the marital property and allocating the marital debts. After reviewing the record and the applicable legal authorities, we affirm.
The parties married in 1985 and separated in 2002. Natalie, a nurse, earns about $3,100 per month. Kenneth is disabled as a result of a 1997 automobile accident, and he receives Social Security disability benefits of $907 per month. After their separation, the parties agreed on all issues relating to the custody, support, and visitation of their two children: Ashley, born in 1995; and Nicholas, born in 2001. All other issues arising from the marital relationship were resolved by the trial court.
In its final judgment, the trial court awarded Natalie assets totaling $128,310, which represented the marital residence and furnishings, a Jeep, her retirement account, and her profit sharing plan. Natalie was also assigned responsibility for all marital debts in the amount of $110,047.44, a sum which included the mortgage on the residence and all credit card debts. Thus, she received a net award of $18,262.56 in marital property.
Kenneth received $12,029 in marital property in the form of a mobile home, a Ford truck, and other items of personalty; he was assigned none of the marital debt. Kenneth was also awarded the proceeds remaining from a 1999 settlement of his automobile injury accident claim as his non-marital property.
On appeal, Natalie's first claim of error concerns the court's treatment of the proceeds from the personal injury settlement. In the fall of 1997, Kenneth suffered serious physical injuries as a result of an automobile accident. The parties filed a lawsuit against the tortfeasor to recover damages for Kenneth's injuries and for Natalie's loss of consortium. They settled the lawsuit for the lump sum of $140,000. The settlement agreement did not contain any breakdown of the specific elements of damages that the payment was intended to compensate. The Holbrooks invested $80,400 (the entire amount remaining after they paid their attorney's fees and costs) in a joint certificate of deposit (CD).
The CD remained in the bank, and the earnings were reinvested until June of 2002. At that time, Kenneth withdrew the money (which had grown to $84,641) and from that point on asserted total control over it. He testified that only $50,000 remained at the time of the parties' separation in December 2002. He accounted for the difference as representing trust accounts set up for the children, improvements made on the marital residence, and payment of living expenses.
Natalie did not dispute that Kenneth placed $10,000 in their children's trust accounts. However, she testified that none of the money had been spent on the house or was used to make purchases for the family. She asked the trial court to treat the entire $84,641 as marital property and to divide it equally between the parties. Relying on Weakley v. Weakley, 731 S.W.2d 243 (Ky. 1987), Kenneth argued that the settlement proceeds were intended to compensate him for his pain and suffering. He asked that the remaining proceeds be characterized solely as his non-marital property.
The trial court agreed with Kenneth, specifically finding in the final decree that "the settlement was for [Kenneth's] pain, suffering and bodily injury." Without making a finding as to the exact amount l
Page 1 2 3 4 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|