WILLIAM A. LANGFORD v. LORETTA V. LANGFORD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
DECEMBER 14, 2001; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2000-CA-002310-MR
WILLIAM A. LANGFORD
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DARREN W. PECKLER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 99-CI-00053
v.
LORETTA V. LANGFORD
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BUCKINGHAM, EMBERTON, AND TACKETT, JUDGES.
TACKETT, JUDGE:
William A. Langford appeals from the denial
without hearing of his motion to reduce the amount of maintenance
owed to his former spouse, Loretta V. Langford, under an order
entered June 30, 2000.
The Boyle Circuit Court, in refusing to
hear William’s motion, made only forty-two days after the
maintenance order was entered, relied on Dame v. Dame, Ky., 628
S.W.2d 625 (1982), which prohibits modification of a maintenance
award of a fixed sum or its equivalent.
William argues on appeal
that the inclusion of the language, “. . . the Respondent’s
spousal maintenance obligation to the Petitioner shall be
reviewed by this Court upon notice and motion . . .” converts the
June 30, 2000, maintenance award of $200 per week for fifty-two
weeks, followed by $100 per week for an additional fifty-two
weeks, into an open-ended maintenance award which may be reviewed
and modified at the court’s discretion if a change in the
parties’ circumstances warrants such modification.
As Loretta points out, however, the above language is
taken out of context by William.
The order actually reads as
follows:
At the expiration of the Respondent having
paid to the Petitioner spousal maintenance
for a period of 104 consecutive weeks as set
forth above, the Respondent’s spousal
maintenance obligation to the Petitioner
shall be reviewed by this Court upon notice
and motion in order to determine whether or
not Respondent’s spousal maintenance
obligation to the petitioner should continue
and, if so, the amount of said obligation to
the Petitioner....
The above language does not convert the award into an open-ended
maintenance obligation as William argues, but instead creates a
closed-ended obligation which may be extended at the option of
the circuit court upon a showing that the maintenance should
continue.
There is nothing in the language of the June 30, 2000,
order that suggests that the maintenance award itself may be
modified prior to the expiration of the 104 week period set forth
in the order.
The circuit court was correct in its application
of Dame to these facts.
Accordingly, the decision of the Boyle Circuit Court is
affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
-2-
Kirk Alan Correll
Stanford, Ketnucky
Ephraim Woods Helton
Helton, Erwin & Sanders
Danville, Kentucky
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
