Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

August 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

Our Editors

Blog powered by TypePad

Statistics - Ky Court Rpt

« January 2008 | Main | March 2008 »

February 2008

LAWWIRE: JAN. 25, 2008 - KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS (2008:05)

JAN. 25, 2008 -  KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS (2008:05)

Collection of judgement from medical practice: MICKLER V. MICKLER (COA 1/25/2008)

MICKLER V. MICKLER
FAMILY LAW:  COLLECTION OF JUDGMENT FROM MEDICAL PRACTICE
2006-CA-001313
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING
PANEL: ACREE PRESIDING; CLAYTON, WINE CONCUR
COUNTY: JEFFERSON
DATE RENDERED: 1/25/2008

Husband appealed an order denying his challenge to a garnishment served by his former Wife on several insurance providers who owed money to Husband’s medical practice. Husband argued that the accounts receivable were monies owed for professional services he performed. Therefore, he asserted the funds constituted wages meaning, pursuant to KRS 427.010(2)(a), 75% of those funds were exempt from garnishment.

CA opined that his argument was more appropriately based on KRS 427.005, which defines earnings. The CA held that accounts receivable that are owed due to personal services and labor of the debtor do constitute wages and are 75% exempt from garnishment. However, the CA further reasoned that the TC was correct in its holding that the funds due Husband were not only for his services but were also due for the services of his staff. Further, it was not the TC’s function, as Husband had asserted, to develop a formula for segregating the funds owed to Husband for his services from those owed due to the efforts of his staff. Instead, the burden of proof was on Husband to prove what portion of the accounts receivable were owed solely due to his personal services. Husband failed to meet this burden. Therefore, the TC correctly denied his motion challenging the garnishment.

Digested by Linda Dixon Bullock, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates

Affirmative waivers required for juvenile transfer hearings: LAKE V. COM. (COA 1/25/2008)

LAKE V. COM.
CRIMINAL:  Waiver of transfer hearings for juveniles and affirmative waivers
2007-CA-000172
PUBLISHED: VACATING AND REMANDING
PANEL: ACREE PRESIDING; NICKELL AND GUIDUGLI CONCUR
COUNTY: KNOX
DATE RENDERED: 1/25/2008

David Lake appeals from an order of the Knox Circuit Court denying his request for RCr 11.42 relief after an evidentiary hearing. Lake raises issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and witness perjury and argues defense counsel improperly waived the hearing to transfer the case from juvenile court to circuit court that is mandated by Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 640.010(2).

In the case at hand, there was absolutely no evidence of a valid waiver of the statutory requirements of KRS 640.010(2).  Lake neither signed any document purporting to waive his right to a transfer hearing, nor did the juvenile court conduct such a hearing. Rather, the juvenile court accepted defense counsel's stipulation of his client's appropriateness for transfer with very little questioning, and none of it directed at Lake. Any juvenile whom the Commonwealth seeks to prosecute as a youthful offender is entitled to a hearing in the juvenile court to decide whether the circuit court shall obtain jurisdiction to try the juvenile as an adult.

Michael Stevens

Criminal forfeitures in cockfighting bust: FALL V. COM. (COA 1/25/08)

FALL V. COM.
CRIMINAL:  FORFEITURES
2007-CA-000885
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING
PANEL:  WINE PRESIDING; KELLER, THOMPSON CONCUR
COUNTY: MONTGOMERY
DATE RENDERED: 1/25/2008

CA affirmed TC's order forfeiting money seized from cockfighting bust. Because the 27 appellants failed to establish that they were innocent owners of the $171,000.00, the trial court properly ordered the forfeiture of the funds to the state. KRS 500.090(2) authorizes the forfeiture of money which has been obtained or conferred in violation of any criminal statute. However, KRS 500.090(4) directs a trial court to “remit the forfeiture of property when the lawful claimant: (a) Asserts his . . . claim before disposition of the property pursuant to this section; (b) Establishes his . . . legal interest in the property; and (c) Establishes that the unlawful use of the property was without his . . . knowledge and consent.”

Note: This editor was stunned to learn that cockfighting events attracting over 500 spectators and $425,000 in wagers take place in Kentucky. Michael Vick would be proud.

Digested by Scott C. Byrd
Olgin and Byrd

Annexation and restrictive covenants: JEWELL V. CITY OF BARDSTOWN, KY (COA 1/25/08)

JEWELL V. CITY OF BARDSTOWN, KY
ANNEXATION:  RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND ESTOPPEL 
2007-CA-000422
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING
PANEL:  LAMBERT PRESIDING; VANMETER, KNOPF CONCUR
COUNTY: NELSON
DATE RENDERED: 1/25/2008

The City of Bardstown (the “City”) began annexation proceedings on some unincorporated property. Many residents in the area of this property opposed annexation and filed a petition in opposition to annexation, requesting a public referendum. The Mayor of Bardstown disqualified those persons who signed the petition and whose property was subject to a Consent to Annexation Agreement. This agreement was entered into by the developers of the property in exchange for the City’s agreement to provide water and sewer services to the neighborhood, and ran with the land. Because of the disqualification, there were not enough signatories for a referendum. The annexation was completed. The residents filed suit challenging the mayor’s actions, but the circuit court affirmed the annexation.

On appeal, the court acknowledged that there are no Kentucky cases discussing whether a restrictive covenant consenting to annexation that runs with the land can estop land owners from signing a petition in opposition to annexation. However, the court looked at cases from other jurisdictions, all of which held that the landowners were estopped from revoking their consent to annexation by purchasing land subject to annexation-consent covenants, and believed that they were consistent with Kentucky’s annexation statutes. The court reasoned that the landowners gave consent to annexation in return for the valuable consideration from the City of the provision of city water and sewer services, and should be estopped from receiving the benefits of the bargain without the obligations. It therefore affirmed the circuit court’s ruling.

Samuel Hinkle

Supreme Court Arguments for March 12, 13 & 14, 2008

Appellate briefs are posted at the Northern Kentucky University, Salmon P. Chase College of Law.  Click here.

For Kentucky Supreme Court LIVE arguments, click here on date and time of argument.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008

9:00 a.m. WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT CABINET V GAINES

(2005-SC-965-DG)
"Kentucky Whistleblower Act. The issue is whether a state agency is a proper recipient of its employee's whistleblower report under KRS 61.102(1), or whether the report must be made to an investigative or law enforcement authority."
Discretionary Review granted 3/14/2007
Franklin Circuit Court, Judge William L. Graham
For Movant: Stewart Burch
For Respondent: Herbert L. Segal and David O'Brien Suetholz
(Note: Justice Abramson and Justice Noble are not sitting -
Special Justices Stewart E. Conner and David T. Royse sitting)

Briefs filed at Chase College of Law:

Appellant’s Brief
Appellee’s Brief
Appellant's Reply Brief

COA OPINION:  2004CA001146 http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2004-CA-001146.pdf

10:00 a.m. CONSOLIDATED INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, INC. V. ALLEN (2006-SC-188-DG)
AND (CROSS- MOTION) ALLEN V. CONSOLIDATED INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, INC.

(2006-SC-712-DG)
"Limitations. Whistleblower Statute. Issues include whether the
90-day KRS 61.103(2) limitations period governs the remedies provided in KRS 61.990(4)."
Discretionary Review granted 9/13/2006 and 11/15/2006
Logan Circuit Court, Judge Tyler L. Gill
For Movant/Cross-Respondent: Gregory N. Stivers and Scott Donald Laufenberg
For Respondent/Cross-Movant: Michael C. Bratcher and Pamela C. Bratcher

Briefs filed at Chase College of Law:

Appellant’s Brief
Appellee’s Brief
Appellant's Reply Brief
Related SCOKY Case: 2006-SC-000188

COA OPINION:  http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2004-CA-001508.pdf

11:00 a.m. COMMONWEALTH V. MERRIMAN (2006-SC-330-DG)  AND (CROSS-MOTION) MERRIMAN V. COMMONWEALTH  (2006-SC-690-DG); AND COMMONWEALTH V. HICKMAN (2006-SC-332-DG)
"Juvenile Code. Youthful Offenders. Violent Offenders. Issues include whether a youthful offender who has committed a violent offense, upon being returned to circuit court when reaching age 18, may be considered for probation or conditional discharge pursuant to KRS 640.030(2), or whether the offender is ineligible pursuant to the violent-offender statute, KRS 439.3401."
Discretionary Review granted 9/13/2006 and 10/12/2006
Fayette Circuit Court, Judge Gary D. Payne  and Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Martin F. McDonald
For Movant/Cross-Respondent  (Commonwealth): William Robert Long, Jr.
For Movant  (Commonwealth): Kenneth Wayne Riggs
For Respondent/Cross-Movant (Merriman): Braxton Crenshaw
For Respondent (Hickman): Elizabeth B. McMahon

Briefs filed at Chase College of Law:

Appellant’s Brief
Appellee’s Brief
Appellant's Reply Brief

COA OPINION:  2005CA000123 http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2005-CA-000123.pdf

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008

9:00 a.m. AMERICAN GENERAL HOME EQUITY. INC. V. KESTEL
(2006-SC-830-DG)
"Arbitration. Waiver. Issues include whether a lender, having initiated litigation to collect on a loan and to foreclose on a mortgage securing that loan, waived its right to respond to a counterclaim by seeking to compel arbitration pursuant to the loan documents."
Discretionary Review granted 2/14/2007
Mercer Circuit Court, Judge Darren Peckler
For Movant: Bethany A. Breetz, Matthew W. Breetz, and Clark Philip Case
For Respondent: Katherine Yunker, Katherine S. Sanford, and Oran Shepherd McFarlan, III
(Note: Justice Noble is recused)

Briefs filed at Chase College of Law:

Appellant’s Brief
Appellee’s Brief
Appellant's Reply Brief
Amicus Curiae Brief of Kentucky Justice Association

COA OPINION:  2005CA000269 http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2005-CA-000269.pdf

10:00 a.m. FIELDS V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY (2004-SC-91-MR)
"Intentional Murder and First-degree burglary - Death Sentence."
Floyd Circuit Court, Judge John David Caudill
For Appellant: Thomas M. Ransdell and Emily Holt Rhorer
For Appellee: David A. Smith and Michael A. Nickles
(Note: Justice Scott is recused)

Briefs filed at Chase College of Law:

Appellant’s Brief
Appellee’s Brief
Appellant's Reply Brief

COA OPINION:  None listed at SC site.

FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 2008

9:00 a.m. BIANCHI, ET AL. V. CITY OF HARLAN, ET AL.
(2006-SC-895-DG)
"Eminent Domain. Compensation. Inverse Condemnation . Unity Rule. Where city's condemnation of several tracts allegedly decreased value of several other nearby tracts owned by condemnee, issues include whether "unity rule" required all the tracts to be considered as one for purposes of determining compensation; whether trial court was required to try condemnation and inverse condemnation claims together; and whether condemnee was entitled to file late answer challenging city's right to take."
Discretionary Review granted 8/15/2007 Harlan Circuit Court, Judge Ron Johnson
For Movants: Rodney E. Buttermore, Jr.
For Respondents: Susan C. Lawson

Briefs filed at Chase College of Law:

Appellant’s Brief
Appellee’s Brief
Appellant's Reply Brief

COA OPINION: 2005CA001019  http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2005-CA-001019.pdf

10:00 a.m. SPEES V. KENTUCKY LEGAL AID, ET AL. (2006-SC-506-DG)
"Constitutional Law. Takings. Issues include whether the failure to pay an appointed warning order attorney is an unconstitutional taking."
Discretionary Review granted 2/14/2007
McCracken Circuit Court, Judge Cynthia E. Sanderson
For Movant: Stanley K. Spees
For Respondents: Allison Connelly, Anne Marie Regan, and Natalie Gayle Bash
(Note: Justice Minton is recused)

Briefs filed at Chase College of Law:

Appellant’s Brief
Appellee’s Brief
Appellant's Reply Brief

COA OPINION:  2005CA000510 http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2005-CA-000510.pdf

11:00 A.M. NANNY V. SMITH (2006-SC-833-DG)
"Civil Procedure. Limitations. CR 3. KRS 413.250. At issue is whether an action is commenced within the period of the statute of limitations when the complaint is delivered timely to the circuit court clerk, but summons is not issued by the clerk until after the limitations period has expired.
Discretionary Review granted 3/14/2007
Graves Circuit Court, Judge Timothy C. Stark
For Movant: Daryl Thomas Dixon
For Respondents: Michael D. Moore

Briefs filed at Chase College of Law:

Appellant’s Brief
Appellee’s Brief

COA OPINION:  2005CA002083  http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2005-CA-002083.pdf

Discretionary Review Grants by SCOKY - Jan. 16, 2008

  • Brownlee and USA v. Ky. Unemployment Ins. Commission 2007-SC-000126-DG, Hardin
    2005CA002255 - http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2005-CA-002255.pdf
    COA affirmed trial court's award of unemployment benefits for good cause which the Army challenged since DOD employees retiring early and receiving voluntary separation incentives.
  • Mattingly v. Stinson, 2007-SC 000221, Hardin
    2006CA000337 http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2006-CA-000337.pdf
    COA ruled that UIM carrier to be identified at trial even when liability limits not advanced per Coots.
  • KFBM v. Stinson, 2007SC000222, Hardin
    See Mattingly v. Stinson
  • Branham v. Stewart, 2007SC000250-DG, Pike
    2006CA000322 http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2006-CA-000322.pdf
    Legal malpractice claim and issues pertaining to attorney client relationship and next friend or minor.
  • DirectTV, Inc. v. Treesh, 2007SC000714-DG, Franklin
    2006CA001983 http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2006-CA-001983.pdf
    At issue is whether the gross receipts of providers of direct satellite broadcast and wireless cable service (“DBS”) are subject to taxation by local school districts pursuant to KRS 160.614(3).

Minutes for Kentucky Court of Appeals for Feb. 22, 2008 (2008:10)

  • Click here for PDF copy of Minutes posted at AOC with links to each published and non-published decision this week. 
  • For our copy of the minutes, click here.
  • 35 rendered decisions - Numbered 218-252
    • 5 published - 218; 227; 231; 235; 250

    Minutes List - all published and nonpublished decisions with links to the full text of the decision posted at AOC's web site plus orders regarding dismissals, extraordinary writs, discretionary review. 

Minutes for Kentucky Supreme Court for Feb. 21, 2008 (2008:09)

  • Click here for  minutes at AOC with links to full text of each decision
  • Click here for blog posting of minutes with highlights
  • 26 rendered decisions:  24-49
  • 10 published (24-33)
  • 10 disciplinary matters (5 published)
  • 7 of 43 cases granted discretionary review - 16.3 % grant rate
  • Minutes List of all published and nonpublished SCOKY decisions with links to the full text of the decision posted at web site plus orders regarding dismissals, extraordinary writs, discretionary review.

LAWWIRE: JAN. 24, 2008 SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY DECISIONS (Vol. 2008:04)

JAN. 24, 2008 SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY DECISIONS (Vol. 2008:04)