Valuing Teachers’ Retirement in Divorce: Not so Fast…

Bradford v. Bradford, No. 2020-CA-0800-MR (Ky. App. 2021)
Shown v. Shown Makes itself Known

Rendered: April 16, 2021
Not to be Published
Reversing in Part, Vacating in Part, and Remanding

EZ QDRO LAW is so excited to have our very first Guest Blogger… meet Brook Mullins, Esq. with the esteemed Jackson Family Law.

Brook is a co-chair of our Northern Kentucky Bar Association’s Family Law Section, and she has graciously taken on the arduous task of reviewing and reporting relevant case law for our members. I twisted Brook’s arm to let me showcase her latest review on a case I’ve had my eye on, which in part is another installation of the implications of the ever-giving Shown v. Shown. You can see my prior posts discussing the impact of both iterations of Shown (both heard before the Supreme Court of Kentucky) here and here.

Without further ado, here is the first of many more (I hope!) case reviews from our #1 Guest Blogger:

Wife appealed the Union Family Court’s Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, asserting that the Family Court erred in its apportionment of the parties’ retirement accounts, denying her request for maintenance, and denying her request for attorney fees.

In support of her allegation that the Family Court erred in its apportionment of the parties’ retirement accounts, Wife argued that there was a failure to consider her Kentucky Teacher’s Retirement (TRS) pension is in lieu of Social Security benefits. Wife admitted that she did not preserve the issue, but requested review based upon palpable error pursuant to CR 61.02. The Kentucky Court of Appeals allowed Wife’s argument to proceed and ultimately agreed with her, finding that the Family Court erred in concluding that the entirety of the parties’ retirement accounts were marital property without citing or applying KRS 403.190(4). The Court of Appeals also concluded that the Family Court erred in not reducing the present value of Wife’s TRS by the present value of Wife’s Social Security Benefits (that she would otherwise be entitled but for her participation in TRS) in accordance with Shown v. Shown, 479 S.W. 3d 611 (Ky. App. 2015). The Court of Appeals determined that a manifest injustice occurred due to the Family Court’s failures, and reversed and remanded directing the Family Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing in accordance with Shown.

The Court of Appeals also vacated the Family Court’s decision not to award Wife spousal maintenance based upon its reversal of the Family Court’s apportionment of the parties’ retirement accounts. In connection therewith the Court of Appeals agreed with Wife that the Family Court erred in denying her maintenance where she demonstrated that there was a $2,000.00 shortfall between her expenses and her income, but concluded that it would be necessary for the Family Court to re-evaluate the issue of Wife’s entitlement to maintenance on remand. The Court of Appeals also cited to KRS 403.220 to remand for further consideration Wife’s request for attorney fees, concluding that consideration of the financial resources of both parties is a prerequisite to an order requiring a party to pay attorney fees.

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.