LARRY REINLE v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN EX REL DELLA M. REINLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
DECEMBER 2, 2005; 2:00 P.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2005-CA-000260-MR
LARRY REINLE
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE LARRY D. RAIKES, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 93-CI-00194
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN
EX REL DELLA M. REINLE
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
GUIDUGLI AND HENRY, JUDGES; POTTER, SENIOR JUDGE. 1
HENRY, JUDGE:
Larry Reinle appeals, pro se, from a ruling of
the Nelson Circuit Court ordering that $1,200.00 be disbursed
from property sale proceeds towards the payment of owed child
support.
Upon review, we affirm.
On July 8, 1993, a judgment was entered in which
Reinle was directed to pay child support in the amount of
1
Senior Judge John Woods Potter, sitting as Special Judge by Assignment of
the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110 (5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution
and KRS 21.580.
$200.00 per month for his minor children.
On December 16, 1998,
the Nelson County Grand Jury indicted Reinle on counts of firstdegree arson, first-degree assault, and the attempted murder of
his wife.
He was subsequently convicted on the assault and
arson charges and was sentenced to thirty (30) years
imprisonment.
As a result of being incarcerated, Reinle became
unable to pay his child support obligation once his funds were
exhausted.
The former Cabinet for Families and Children 2
subsequently filed an action against him to recover the child
support for which he was in default—an amount totaling
$10,934.50 plus taxable costs and 12% interest from December 31,
2002.
As a result of this proceeding, a lien was placed
against all land owned by Reinle to secure payment of the owed
child support.
On February 7, 2003, a Complaint for Foreclosure
was filed against Reinle, which resulted in his property being
sold for $40,000.00 at a public auction on December 17, 2003.
After a deduction of fees and costs, $37,925.03 was left in the
possession of the Master Commissioner.
On April 30, 2004, Reinle’s child support arrearage
was valued at $16,273.13.
Reinle asserted that he was entitled
to a $5,000.00 homestead exemption from the proceeds of the
2
On December 23, 2003, Governor Fletcher signed an Executive Order merging
the former Cabinet for Families and Children and the Cabinet for Health
Services to form the present Cabinet for Health and Family Services.
-2-
property sale, as well as a 50% exemption on the sale price
pursuant to KRS 3 405.470(2).
In decisions rendered on May 14 and
May 20, 2004, the Master Commissioner was directed to disburse
$13,962.52 of the property sale proceeds for the payment of
Reinle’s defaulted child support obligation as of April 30,
2004.
This sum represents the difference between 50% of the
property sale price and the $5,000.00 homestead exemption
claimed by Reinle.
The Master Commissioner continued to hold
the remaining balance.
On October 1, 2003, the trial court ruled that the
claimed $5,000.00 homestead exemption was not exempt from
disbursal.
Reinle appealed this decision, but voluntarily
dismissed this claim on May 7, 2004, in Case No. 2003-CA-002731.
As to Reinle’s contention that he was entitled to a 50%
exemption on the property sale price, this court held in Reinle
v. Commonwealth, 170 S.W.3d 417 (Ky.App. 2005), that KRS Chapter
405 was not applicable and, accordingly, Reinle was not entitled
to the 50% exemption he claimed.
On November 15, 2004, the trial court ordered that the
remaining owed child support balance of $2,310.60 be disbursed
from the property sale proceeds and paid to the division of
child support.
The court further ordered that the Master
Commissioner disburse $1,200.00 as the value of owed child
3
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-3-
support between April 30, 2004 and November 15, 2004, for a
total disbursed amount of $17,473.12.
On appeal, Reinle argues that the trial court acted
without jurisdiction when it ordered that $1,200.00 be disbursed
to cover his child support obligation from April 30, 2004 to
November 15, 2004.
Reinle specifically contends that
jurisdiction was lacking because the $1,200.00 was improperly
deducted from his share of the sale proceeds, because the order
was rendered while his appeal on the issue of whether he was
entitled to 50% of the sale proceeds was pending before this
court, and because the $1,200.00 was disbursed without the
Cabinet having filed a separate child support arrearage action
seeking this amount.
We question whether Reinle’s argument that the
$1,200.00 was improperly deducted from his exempted share of the
sale proceeds has been properly preserved for our review upon
examination of the record on appeal.
Nevertheless, we find that
this assertion can be easily rejected as a result of our holding
in Reinle, supra, that Reinle was not entitled to a 50% sale
price exemption under KRS Chapter 405.
Moreover, even assuming
that he was entitled to this exemption, the record reflects that
the trial court could have ordered disbursal of $1,200.00 from
the sale proceeds without encroaching upon his purported
interest.
Consequently, Reinle’s argument is without merit.
-4-
As to Reinle’s contention that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to order disbursal of the $1,200.00 because an
appeal was pending, in Johnson v. Commonwealth, 17 S.W.3d 109
(Ky. 2000), the Kentucky Supreme Court held: “As a general rule,
except with respect to issues of custody and child support in a
domestic relations case, the filing of a notice of appeal
divests the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on any issues
while the appeal is pending.”
(Citations omitted).
Id. at 113 (Emphasis added)
The issue at hand is clearly one involving
child support, and Reinle has presented nothing of substance to
indicate why this rule is not applicable here or why this case
is distinguishable.
Accordingly, we must reject his argument.
Reinle’s final contention is that the $1,200.00 should
not have been disbursed without the Cabinet filing a separate
child support arrearage action seeking this amount.
Our review
of the record shows that this assertion has not been properly
preserved for our review.
“An appellate court will not consider
a theory unless it has been raised before the trial court and
that court has been given an opportunity to consider the merits
of the theory.”
Shelton v. Commonwealth, 992 S.W.2d 849, 852
(Ky. App. 1998) (citing Hopewell v. Commonwealth, 641 S.W.2d
744, 745 (Ky. 1982). "Regardless of the merits of this argument,
these grounds, being different from those asserted in the court
-5-
below, are not properly preserved for appellate review."
Daugherty v. Commonwealth, 572 S.W.2d 861, 863 (Ky. 1978).
We do note, however, that as a substantive matter
Reinle provides absolutely nothing in terms of authority to
support his argument, with the exception of a vague reference to
KRS 403.211.
Our courts have established that an alleged error
may be deemed waived where an appellant fails to cite any
authority in support of the issues and arguments advanced on
appeal.
See Elwell v. Stone, 799 S.W.2d 46, 47-48 (Ky.App.
1990); Pierson v. Coffey, 706 S.W.2d 409, 413 (Ky.App. 1986).
"[W]ithout any argument or citation of authorities, [an
appellate] [c]ourt has little or no indication of why the
assignment represents an error."
851 (La. 1988).
State v. Bay, 529 So.2d 845,
It is not our function as an appellate court to
research and construct a party’s legal arguments, and we decline
to do so here.
See, e.g., Doherty v. City of Chicago, 75 F.3d
318, 324 (7th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted); CR 4 76.12(4)(c)(v).
Consequently, we shall not consider this issue further.
The ruling of the Nelson Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
4
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-6-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Larry Reinle, Pro Se
LaGrange, Kentucky
John S. Kelley, Jr.
Bardstown, Kentucky
-7-
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.