26 Oct October 2024 Supreme Court Round Up
The Kentucky Supreme Court issued only one family law decision in October, but the Opinion itself was surprising. While limited to applying one procedure rule in Family Court, the case caught many in the divorce field off guard.
Jay Picard v. Katherine Knight, 2023-SC-0043
On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Kentucky eliminated the use of a specific Civil Rule of Procedure in all family law matters. The Rule in question, Rule 68, governed the use of an Offer of Judgment in divorce and cases. Rule 68 permitted a party to recover attorney fees and costs following a rejected settlement offer.
Justice Kelly Thompson’s Opinion found that the Offer of Judgment rule was incompatible with the Family Court cases.
In this case, Jay Picard sought costs and attorney fees from co-parent Katherine Knight under CR 68 after Katherine rejected his settlement offer in a child support modification case. Jay had offered $150 a month, but the Family Court found that no child support would be paid based on the parenting schedule and the parents’ income levels. Jay contends that he spent thousands in legal fees for no reason.
The Pulaski County Family Court judge denied Jay’s request. The Court concluded that Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) Chapter 403, which governs family law matters, preempts CR 68. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed on different grounds.
The Supremes also affirmed upon Jay’s second appeal. The justices ruled that KRS 403.220, the statute that allows courts to consider financial resources in awarding attorney fees in family matters, is inconsistent with CR 68’s mandate for automatic cost awards after unaccepted offers. The Supreme Court emphasized that family law proceedings are fundamentally equitable and non-adversarial. Family law cases aim to serve children’s best interests and fairness between parties rather than creating winners and losers. Our state’s high court found that, even though the statute states that the Civil Rules apply to all proceedings in family court and the Family Court Rules of Procedure uses similar language, this particular rule cannot be used in Family Court. Instead, the Supreme Court found that judges could use other methods to assess attorney fees.
To be Published. http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2023-SC-0043-DG.pdf
Our Opinion of the Opinion
The Editorial Board here at the Round-Up believes that this Opinion is flawed. The use of the Offer of Judgment rule helps generate a settlement dialogue. This is especially true when one party seeks to delay the Family Court process for no legitimate reason. Rule 68 has traditionally been used to bring a reluctant party to the table. If anything, it has been an underutilized tool by Family Court lawyers.
Further, using the attorney fees statute and Civil Rule 11 will not, in our humble opinion, be an adequate substitute for the Offer of Judgement Rule. If the Rule were going to be eliminated, the proper method would have been in the amendment to the state’s Uniform Rule of Practice and Procedure. The newest version is less than 2 years old. At the time of passage and approval by the Supreme Court, there was not a push to eliminate Rule 68.
Over the past few years, Kentucky’s appellate courts have emphasized that Family Courts are courts first, and that lawyers and judges are required to follow the state’s law, including the mandatory application of the rules. In this instance, the Supreme Court takes a vastly different approach with an emphasis on equity rather than the specific language of a very clear rule. Is this the start of a trend or just a stand-alone case? Will other longstanding Rules of Procedure or Evidence be discarded? Stay tuned…
Thanks for reading! Click here for the previous Round Up.