ADRIANNA CROFT v. DIMITRI CROFT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: NOVEMBER 2, 2007; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2006-CA-001403-MR
ADRIANNA CROFT
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM CALDWELL CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE BILL CUNNINGHAM, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 05-CI-00186
DIMITRI CROFT
APPELLEE
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: DIXON AND KELLER, JUDGES; GRAVES1, SENIOR JUDGE
DIXON, JUDGE: Appellant, Adrianna Croft, appeals from an order of the Caldwell
Circuit Court restoring nonmarital property, dividing marital property and denying
maintenance in this dissolution proceeding. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse
and remand for further proceedings.
1
Senior Judge J. William Graves sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statutes
(KRS) 21.580.
Adrianna and Dimitri Croft were married on October 18, 1997. No children
were born of the marriage. Dimitri was self-employed as a backhoe operator and
Adrianna was employed as a loan and trust operator until 1998, when she was diagnosed
with multiple chemical sensitivity. The Social Security Administration determined her to
be permanently disabled on April 1, 1998.
During the marriage, the parties acquired several pieces of property,
including two lots located in Salem, Kentucky, and 20 acres of land located in
Livingston County. The house and adjoining lot where the parties lived was also located
in Salem, Kentucky, and was purchased by Dimitri prior to the marriage for $18,000;
however, the remaining balance on the mortgage was not paid in full until 1999, two
years after the parties were married. Adrianna testified that several improvements to the
residence were undertaken and completed during the marriage, including new appliances,
wallpaper and paint to the interior of the home, as well as a new exterior deck and
landscaping.
The parties separated in September 2005. On April 20, 2006, the trial court
entered an interlocutory decree dissolving the marriage and reserving other issues for
adjudication. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a final order on
May 9, 2006, addressing property division and Adrianna's claim for maintenance. The
trial court awarded the house and lot located in Salem, Kentucky, to Dimitri as his
nonmarital property and the other two lots in Salem to Adrianna. Further, the court
ordered the 20 acres in Livingston County to be sold with the proceeds equally divided.
-2-
In addition, each party was awarded the personal property that was currently in his or her
possession. Finally, the trial court denied Adrianna's claim for maintenance. Adrianna
thereafter appealed to this Court. A cross-appeal filed by Dimitri was subsequently
dismissed by this Court on October 19, 2006, as untimely.
Adrianna's first claim of error concerns the award of the Salem house and
lot to Dimitri as nonmarital property. After reviewing the evidence presented, we agree
that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find that the property had both marital
and nonmarital components.
The record establishes that Dimitri purchased the house and lot in question
in 1996 for $18,000. However, the balance of the mortgage was not paid until 1999, after
the parties were married. At the evidentiary hearing, both parties presented appraisals
indicating that the value of the property, at the time of the parties dissolution, was
between $28,000 and $29,000. Further, Adrianna testified that during the marriage,
appliances and fixtures in the house were replaced, the interior was painted and
wallpapered, and a deck and landscaping were added to the exterior. Thus, Adrianna
claims that the increase in value should be considered marital property.
KRS § 403.190, Disposition of Property, provides, in relevant part, as
follows:
(2) For the purpose of this chapter, “marital property” means
all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the
marriage except:
....
-3-
(e) The increase in value of property acquired before
the marriage to the extent that such increase did not
result from the efforts of the parties during marriage.
(3) All property acquired by either spouse after the marriage
and before a decree of legal separation is presumed to be
marital property, regardless of whether title is held
individually or by the spouses in some form of co-ownership
such as joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the
entirety, and community property. The presumption of
marital property is overcome by a showing that the property
was acquired by a method listed in subsection (2) of this
section.
(Emphasis added).
The burden of proof is on the party claiming that the increase in value is to
be considered nonmarital, and he must satisfy that burden by “clear and convincing”
evidence. Brosick v. Brosick, 974 S.W.2d 498 (Ky.App. 1998). “KRS 403.190(3) . . .
creates a presumption that any such increase in value is marital property, and therefore, a
party asserting that he or she should receive appreciation upon a nonmarital contribution
as his or her nonmarital property carries the burden of proving the portion of the increase
in value attributable to the nonmarital contribution. By virtue of the KRS 403.190(3)
presumption, the failure to do so will result in the increase being characterized as martial
property.” Travis v. Travis, 59 S.W.3d 904, 910-11 (Ky. 2001).
KRS 403.190(2)(e) carves out an exception to what is considered “marital
property” for “[a]n increase in value of property acquired before the marriage to the
extent that such increase did not result from the efforts of the parties during marriage.”
(Emphasis added). Therefore, conversely an increase in value of property that did result
-4-
from the efforts of the parties during marriage should be considered marital property. In
Goderwis v. Goderwis, 780 S.W.2d 39 (Ky. 1989), the Kentucky Supreme Court held
that if nonmarital property increases in value during the marriage, the trial court must
determine the reason for the increase. If the increase is attributable to general economic
conditions, it is considered nonmarital. However, “[a]n increase in value of nonmarital
property during marriage which is the result of a joint effort of the parties establishes the
increase in value of the nonmarital property as marital property.” Id. at 40.
Undisputed testimony from both parties detail improvements made to the
house, including the addition of new appliances throughout the house, as well as the
addition of a new structural outdoor deck space. These improvements cannot be
discredited as attributable reasons for the increase in value of the property. Although
Dimitri wishes to label these improvements as mere “maintenance,” and seeks to
categorize them as “not substantial enough to warrant an increase in [value],” courts have
failed to recognize any hierarchical, categorical requirements regarding improvements
relating to KRS 403.190. The Court requires only a showing that the increase in value of
the property was not solely attributable to general economic conditions, but was a result
of the joint efforts of the parties in order to qualify property as marital property.
The burden of proof to rebut the presumption that the increase in property
value should be considered marital, as set forth by KRS § 403.190, remains with Dimitri.
Absent any “clear and convincing” proof, the increase in value of the property should be
categorized as marital property. Dimitri did not establish that the increase in value of the
-5-
marital residence was due to general economic circumstances or his sole efforts.
Therefore, the appreciation in value of the residence must be deemed to be marital
property.
In addition, in Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 617 S.W.2d 871, 875
(Ky.App. 1981), the Kentucky Court of Appeals was asked to determine whether
property owned by one spouse prior to marriage, whose subsequent payments were made
from marital funds after the marriage should be considered nonmarital or marital
property. The Court examined evidence showing that “the parties applied marital funds
to reduce the balance of the indebtedness owed on the appellee's nonmarital real
properties. Therefore, some portion of the increased value of the properties at dissolution
was attributable to the joint efforts of the parties during the marriage.” Id. at 875.
Concluding that marital funds were utilized to reduce the mortgage debt, the Court held
that some portion of the increased value of the properties was required to be set aside as
marital property, and the trial “court's failure to do so was an abuse of discretion.” Id.
Similar to Brandenburg, uncontested testimony was offered showing that
the outstanding mortgage loan amount on the residence was decreased and paid off using
marital funds for nearly two years after the parties were married. Employing the
precedent set forth by Brandenburg, the trial court should have recognized that marital
funds were used to reduce the mortgage debt, and should additionally have apportioned
some of the increased value in property as marital property. Id. at 875.
-6-
Adrianna next argues that the trial court erred in awarding the parties the
personal property in their possession at the time of the order. She cites to KRS 403.190,
which states that the court “shall divide the marital property without regard to marital
misconduct in just proportions considering all relevant factors[.]” Adrianna argues that
the court did not recount the status of the marital estate and did not divide the property
proportionately. We disagree.
A trial court is to divide marital property in just proportions considering all
relevant factors. Wood v. Wood, 720 S.W.2d 934 (Ky. 1986); See also Herron v. Herron,
573 S.W.2d 342 (Ky. 1978). However, just proportions does not necessarily mean equal
proportions. Wood, supra. There was substantial evidence presented during the hearing
to establish the values of the real property as well as the vehicles and tools in Dimitri's
possession. Dimitri presented proof that a 1996 Chevrolet truck valued at $22,000 was
purchased with nonmarital funds. Further, the bulk of his tools, equipment and work
vehicles were purchased prior to the marriage, and thus, were nonmarital property.
Although Adrianna claimed that some of the property in Dimitri's possession was marital,
she provided no evidence or monetary values of such to support her claims.
We find Adrianna's reliance on this Court's unpublished decision in Counts
v. Counts, 2004-CA-002612-ME (February 3, 2006), misplaced. In Counts, the trial
court awarded each party the personal property in his or her possession without any
knowledge or accounting of its value. Here, the trial court was aware of exactly what
property was at issue and what its value was, and divided such accordingly. The trial
-7-
judge acknowledged that this was a “he said/she said” case, and we believe that he was in
the best position to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties and allocate the
property accordingly.
Finally, Adrianna takes issue with the trial court's denial of her claim for
permanent spousal maintenance. Specifically, the court found, “that with the division of
marital property and considering the length of the marriage, the court does not believe
that maintenance is appropriate.” We agree.
We are mindful that “[m]aintenance determinations are within the sound
discretion of the trial court.” Platt v. Platt, 728 S.W.2d 542, 543 (Ky.App. 1987).
Gentry v. Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928 (Ky. 1990). As such, “unless absolute abuse is shown,
the appellate court must maintain confidence in the trial court and not disturb the findings
of the trial judge.” Clark v. Clark, 782 S.W.2d 56, 60 (Ky.App. 1990) (Citing Platt,
supra). The trial court, as fact finder, is in the best position to evaluate the weight and
credibility of the evidence; consequently, this court will not substitute its judgment absent
clear error. CR 52.01; Bickel v. Bickel, 95 S.W.3d 928 (Ky. 2002); Perrine v. Christine,
833 S.W.2d 825, 827 (Ky. 1992).
When determining whether an award of maintenance is appropriate, KRS
403.200(1) requires the trial court to find that the spouse seeking maintenance: (1) lacks
sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to her, to provide for her
reasonable needs; and (2) is unable to support herself through appropriate employment.
Adrianna focuses on the second prong of the statute in claiming that she is unable to
-8-
support herself through appropriate employment. However, the trial court found that she
was awarded sufficient real and personal property, in addition to her bank stock and
disability income, to provide for her reasonable needs. Further, although the court
repeatedly questioned Adrianna as to how her standard of living had changed after the
divorce, Adrianna could only articulate that she did not “eat out as often.”
We are of the opinion that the trial court did specifically consider the
requirements of KRS 403.200(1) in light of the evidence presented by the parties.
Furthermore, the court was not obligated to set forth additional findings under KRS
403.200(1)(b), because it had already determined Adrianna was awarded sufficient
property to provide for her needs. After our own review of the record, we conclude the
trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence and not an abuse of discretion.
Therefore, we cannot find that the trial court erred by denying Adrianna's claim for
maintenance.
The Caldwell Circuit Court's order finding that the house and lot located in
Salem, Kentucky, were Dimitri's nonmarital property is reversed. The matter is
remanded for apportionment of the increase in value as marital property. The trial court's
findings as to all other issues are affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Jill L. Giordano
Princeton, Kentucky
Natalie M. White
Eddyville, Kentucky
-9-
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.