EVELYN MARIE CLARK v. ADRIAN A. CLARK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 21, 2007; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2005-CA-002502-MR
EVELYN MARIE CLARK
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE HUGH SMITH HAYNIE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 04-CI-500959
ADRIAN A. CLARK
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING IN PART
VACATING AND REMANDING IN PART
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: ACREE, KELLER, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.
ACREE, JUDGE: Evelyn Clark appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court
terminating her marriage to Adrian Clark. Specifically, Evelyn takes issue with the
portions of the dissolution decree assigning value to a 2002 Ford Taurus, declining to
address the value of certain certificates of deposit and reducing her maintenance. We
have reviewed the issues presented in the briefs and the evidence before the trial court
and have heard oral arguments from the parties. Based on all of these factors, we affirm
the trial court's decision with regard to the valuation and assignment of marital property,
and we vacate and remand with regard to the maintenance award.
The parties were married July 1, 1985, and separated January 23, 2004. At
the time of their divorce, Evelyn was seventy-years-old and Adrian was seventy-eight.
Prior to their marriage, Adrian owned a home on thirty-six acres, free of encumbrance,
one hundred fifty hogs and one hundred ten head of cattle. Adrian sold his livestock
shortly after the marriage and purchased certificates of deposit with the proceeds of the
sale. During their marriage, the parties lived on Adrian's social security and pension
benefits and, once Evelyn reached sixty-two years of age, her social security benefits.
While Evelyn's dissolution petition was pending, Adrian was ordered to pay
$300.00 per month pendente lite maintenance. The parties were able to agree on the
division of most of their property, but there were disputes as to the marital or nonmarital
character of the Ford Taurus, the certificates of deposit and Adrian's bank accounts.
The trial court conducted a trial on October 6, 2005, before entering an
order containing findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment on November 8,
2005. The trial court found the Taurus to be marital property and awarded it to Evelyn
with a value of $12,000.00. The certificates of deposit were neither assigned nor
awarded since Evelyn failed to present any evidence that they existed at the time of the
parties' divorce. Adrian's bank accounts were found to be marital property and divided
equally between the parties. After dividing all marital property, the trial court reduced
Evelyn's maintenance award to a monthly sum of $100.00.
-2-
Evelyn filed this appeal, raising issues concerning the valuation of the
Taurus, the trial court's failure to award the certificates of deposit, and the reduction in
her monthly maintenance payments. While this appeal was pending, Evelyn subpoenaed
bank records, showing that Adrian cashed out several certificates of deposit in March
2004, two months after the couple separated. She then filed a motion, pursuant to
Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02(c), arguing that Adrian had perjured
himself at trial by stating that the certificates of deposit no longer existed. At the same
time, Evelyn filed a motion with this Court, which we granted, to hold her appeal in
abeyance until the trial court ruled on her CR 60.02 motion.
The trial court conducted a hearing on Evelyn's motion on April 27, 2006.
Its order denying the CR 60.02 motion was dated May 2, 2006. Subsequently, we
returned the original appeal to our active docket on May 22, 2006. In our order, we
specifically stated that issues related to the trial court's ruling on the CR 60.02 motion had
to be raised in a separate, timely-filed appeal. Evelyn attempted to appeal from the trial
court's order denying her CR 60.02 motion; however, her notice of appeal was not filed in
a timely manner. Consequently, we dismissed the second appeal, as required by CR
73.02(1)(a), by order entered September 26, 2006.1 The original appeal from the trial
court's November 8, 2005, judgment is currently before us.
Evelyn contends the trial court erred in its findings of fact regarding the car
and the certificates of deposit and abused its discretion in reducing her maintenance
award. CR 52.01 states that “[f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly
1
This action was assigned the case number 2006-CA-001155.
-3-
erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the
credibility of the witnesses.” On appeal, the test is whether the trial court's findings are
clearly erroneous or whether the trial court abused its discretion. Cherry v. Cherry, 634
S.W.2d 423, 425 (Ky. 1982). Evelyn first argues the trial court abused its discretion
when it assumed facts not in evidence about the value of the 2002 Ford Taurus.
Prior to trial, the parties disputed the marital nature of the Taurus with
Evelyn arguing that Adrian had purchased the car as a gift for her and, thus, it was not
marital property within the definition of Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 403.190(2).
Adrian disputed that the Taurus was purchased as a gift to Evelyn and, indeed, the car
was titled in both parties' names. At trial, neither party testified as to the current value of
the Taurus. The trial court found that Evelyn failed to meet her burden of proving that
the car was her nonmarital property. Nevertheless, the car was awarded to Evelyn and
assigned the $12,000.00 value listed as its NADA book value in Adrian's mandatory case
disclosure.
Evelyn contends it was incumbent upon Adrian to introduce evidence of the
car's value at trial, since he argued it was a marital asset. She cites CR 43.01(1), which
states, “The party holding the affirmative of an issue must produce the evidence to prove
it.” Although she concedes that Adrian's mandatory case disclosure listed the car's
NADA value as $12,000.00, Evelyn claims his failure to introduce evidence of its value
at trial deprived her of the opportunity to refute this figure. Thus, she argues the burden
of refuting the Taurus' supposed value of $12,000.00 never fell to her. She asks this
-4-
Court to assign a value of zero dollars to the car or, in the alternative, to allow her to
present evidence contradicting the value assigned by the trial court.
We disagree that Evelyn had no opportunity to refute the value contained in
Adrian's mandatory case disclosure. We note, first of all, that Evelyn filed her own case
disclosure and failed to assign any value to the Taurus because she contended it was her
nonmarital property. Adrian's case disclosure, listing the Taurus as marital property and
stating its NADA value as $12,000.00, was filed in the record on June 30, 2004. Thus, at
the time of the trial, she had notice that he was characterizing the car as marital property
and also of its asserted value. It appears that, instead of introducing her own evidence
regarding the car's value, Evelyn relied on her ability to persuade the trial court of the
car's nonmarital character. That she failed to do so does not entitle her to a second bite at
the apple when she has already had sufficient opportunity to contradict Adrian's
assessment of the car's value.
Evelyn next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by entering
findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the existence of the certificates of
deposit that were clearly erroneous. At trial, Evelyn testified that Adrian had some
certificates of deposit with the PRP National Bank. She introduced records showing
certificates of deposit dated August 16, 2001, with a maturation date of August 16, 2003.
Evelyn claimed that Adrian deposited $83,000.00 in certificates of deposit during their
marriage. She did not testify to the source of the funds, although she admitted that
Adrian owned some livestock prior to their marriage. According to her own account,
-5-
their income during the marriage came from Adrian's pension and social security and her
own social security once she reached the age of sixty-two. In addition, Evelyn offered no
proof that the certificates of deposit still existed.
Adrian testified about the amount and value of the livestock he owned
before his marriage to Evelyn. He stated that all of the funds used to purchase certificates
of deposit came from the sale of his nonmarital livestock. Furthermore, Adrian claimed
that these investments were exhausted during the marriage. He argued that it would have
been impossible for the parties to live on their limited incomes and accumulate the
amount of funds used to buy certificates of deposit during their marriage. Adrian's son
was also called as a witness. His testimony was consistent with Adrian's account of
selling his livestock shortly after his marriage and investing the proceeds in certificates of
deposit.
The trial court's order noted that no evidence had been introduced to
document the current existence of the certificates of deposit. The only testimony bearing
directly on that issue was Adrian's statement that the certificates of deposit no longer
existed. Thus, the trial court found that it was unable to award or assign an asset whose
existence was unproven.
Evelyn argues that the trial court's order ignores the uncontested proof that
Adrian bought $83,000.00 in certificates of deposit in 2001. We disagree. The court's
order plainly states that Evelyn offered evidence that Adrian purchased certificates of
deposit in 2001; however, those certificates matured in 2003, two years before the trial in
-6-
this action. At trial, Evelyn offered no proof that any certificates of deposit currently
existed. Moreover, Adrian testified the proceeds from the certificates of deposit had been
exhausted. On appeal, the bulk of Evelyn's argument on this issue is devoted to the
evidence she presented in support of her CR 60.02 motion that Adrian had cashed out
certain certificates of deposit shortly after the parties separated. In doing so, she is
attempting to ignore our previous order of May 22, 2006, which specifically stated “any
issues related to the order ruling on the CR 60.02 motion can only be raised on appeal if
appellant files a timely Notice of Appeal from that order.” As previously mentioned,
Evelyn's failure to do so resulted in the dismissal of her appeal from the order denying
her CR 60.02 motion. Thus, we will not consider evidence which was not before the trial
court at the time of its original order. Based on the evidence introduced at trial, the trial
court committed no error in refusing to assign or award certificates of deposit whose
existence was unproven.
Finally, Evelyn argues the trial court abused its discretion when it reduced
her maintenance award. Prior to the final judgment in this case, Adrian was ordered to
pay Evelyn $300.00 per month pendente lite maintenance. Evelyn requested that she be
awarded the same amount as lifetime maintenance. At trial, she adopted her previously
stated living expenses of $956.00, but she also told the trial court that she was currently
obliged to live with her daughter. The trial court subtracted her rent and telephone bills
and determined her monthly living expenses to be $321.00. Evelyn's monthly income
from social security was $481.00, leaving her with a surplus of $160.00. Adrian's
-7-
reasonable monthly living expenses were $1,500.00 and his income was $1,700.00,
leaving a surplus of $200.00.
The trial court, following the guidelines in KRS 403.200, determined that
Evelyn lacked sufficient property to meet her reasonable needs and was unable to support
herself through employment. Further, it found Adrian was able to meet his own needs
while supporting Evelyn. Although Evelyn's monthly expenses had been reduced out of
necessity, the trial court only awarded her with lifetime maintenance of $100.00 per
month, a $200.00 reduction from the amount of the pendente lite maintenance. Evelyn
contends the trial court erred in setting her permanent maintenance so low that she would
be dependent upon others for the means to meet her basic needs. She also claims the trial
court had uncontroverted proof that Adrian possessed $83,000.00 in marital funds from
cashing out certificates of deposit shortly after the parties separated. We have already
noted that the only proof of the existence of these funds was presented in support of
Evelyn's CR 60.02 motion, and she is unable to argue any of the issues surrounding the
ruling on that motion in this appeal. She does, however, make a persuasive claim
regarding the trial court's decision to reduce her maintenance to an amount that still
leaves her unable to provide for herself.
“Under [KRS 403.200], the trial court has dual responsibilities: one, to
make relevant findings of fact; and two, to exercise its discretion in making a
determination on maintenance in light of those facts.” Perrine v. Christine, 833 S.W.2d
825, 826 (Ky. 1992). The statute directs the trial court to consider all relevant factors in
-8-
determining the amount and duration of a maintenance award. Specifically, the trial
court is required to consider the following:
(a) The financial resources of the party seeking
maintenance, including marital property apportioned to
him, and his ability to meet his needs independently . .
.
(b) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or
training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find
appropriate employment;
(c) The standard of living established during the marriage;
(d) The duration of the marriage;
(e) The age, and the physical and emotional condition of the
spouse seeking maintenance; and
(f) The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is
sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the
spouse seeking maintenance.
KRS 403.200(2). Of the six factors specifically enumerated in the statute, the trial court's
order addressed only the last: Adrian's ability to meet his own needs while paying
maintenance to Evelyn. KRS 403.200(2)(f).
Nowhere in this order does the trial court address the issue of Evelyn's
current standard of living versus the lifestyle she shared with Adrian during their
marriage. KRS 403.200(2)(c). The parties lived together as husband and wife for almost
nineteen years. Both parties submitted their monthly living expenses. Evelyn's total,
comprised of rent, utilities, groceries, prescriptions, insurance, and a modest sum for
haircare, totaled $956.00. Her income from social security was $481.00. Adrian's
-9-
monthly living expenses, including cable, maid service, $200.00 for entertainment and
$320.00 for maintaining his house and property, totaled $1,962.00. His monthly income
was $1,700.00. We note that the parties had a disparity of $1,006.00 in living expenses
and $1,219.00 in income each month.
Although the trial court acknowledged that Evelyn had been forced to live
with her daughter because her income, including pendente lite maintenance, was
insufficient to provide for her very modest needs, it nevertheless subtracted rent and
utilities from her monthly living expenses to arrive at the figure of $321.00. The trial
court apparently deemed Adrian's living expenses to be excessive because it determined
his reasonable expenses were $1,500.00. The trial court's order concedes that Evelyn's
reduction in monthly expenses is solely attributable to her inability to live on her own and
her reliance on the charity of her daughter. The court then relied on that charity as a basis
upon which to reduce Evelyn's permanent monthly maintenance to $100. The award of
such a modest sum ensures that Evelyn will be required to depend indefinitely on the
generosity of others to meet her basic need for shelter.
This Court has previously determined that “failure to award . . . a sum
sufficient to allow [a spouse] to meet his needs without requiring that he depend on the
generosity of family and friends was plainly an abuse of discretion.” Leitsch v. Leitsch,
839 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Ky.App. 1992). Consequently, the trial court's decision to award
Evelyn maintenance of only $100.00 per month, and its dependence upon the generosity
of others to supplement its award, was clearly erroneous.
- 10 -
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court is
affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions for the trial court to
review the maintenance award, taking into account all of the listed factors in KRS
403.200(2).
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLANT:
BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLEE:
Teddy B. Gordon
Louisville, Kentucky
Thomas M. Denbow
Louisville, Kentucky
- 11 -
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.