Kentucky Case Law Update

Kentucky may have many corners, but property settlement agreements only have four…

Ross v. Ross, Nos. 11-CI-503245 & 2016-CA-000430-MR (Ky. App. 2018)
Agreement Terms as Contractual Provisions

Dated: September 7, 2018
Not to be Published
Affirming

When you think spring, what’s the first thing that comes to your mind? New beginnings and de novo review? Award terms as clear as a morning sky in May? If either of your answers were “no,” let my latest Kentucky Case Law Update get you into the proper spirit of things.

In Ross v. Ross, the Court of Appeals reminds practitioners for the umpteenth time that clear and unambiguous agreement terms… get clear and unambiguous interpretations. The parties, who were both receiving retirement benefits when the marriage was dissolved, sought to equalize their respective monthly incomes by assigning Wife a share of Husband’s benefits via QDRO. After some back and forth regarding the terms of the QDRO, the parties reached a second agreement providing for interim maintenance payments to Wife, and, importantly, expressly outlining that such payments were to be provided in lieu of future payments to Wife, not in excess.

Not long after she began receiving payments from Husband’s benefits, however, Wife requested (and was denied in family court) the retroactive award of such payments from the date they were first awarded her under the parties’ first agreement through the date they ultimately began. The Court of Appeals affirmed, providing a nice refresher for the standard of review of a trial court’s interpretation of a settlement agreement, and stating that even if Wife’s share of the benefits were to exceed the maintenance payments she received, “[n]either agreement contains any provision which would require any additional monies in excess of the require [sic] maintenance payment”.

But, if you’re too busy to open up the windows a little to let this Opinion blow the dust from your understandings of agreements, terms, and their interpretation in the Commonwealth (and you thought I was done with terrible spring metaphors), I’ll just repeat what I said earlier to give you a rough idea: clear and unambiguous agreement terms yield clear and unambiguous interpretations. On the other hand, ambiguous terms leave room for even the most dubious attempts to get a second bite of the chocolate bunny.

Additional Cases of Interest:

• http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2018-CA-000554.pdf (a must-read: discretion of trial court, separate property claim burden, standard of evidence, and just proportions)

• http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2017-CA-000169.pdf (unsuccessful claim that expenses incurred during divorce should be offset from retirement equalization)

Blog Posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.