ELMORE (MELINDA KAYE) VS. ELMORE (MICHAEL RAY)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: DECEMBER 29, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2010-CA-000094-MR
MELINDA KAYE ELMORE
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM BUTLER CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE SAM H. MONARCH, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 08-CI-00162
MICHAEL RAY ELMORE
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING IN PART, VACATING IN PART
AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS AND DIXON, JUDGES; ISAAC,1 SENIOR JUDGE.
DIXON, JUDGE: Melinda Kaye Elmore appeals from a judgment and decree of
dissolution of marriage rendered by the Butler Circuit Court. The sole issue
presented on appeal regards the classification of Michael’s retirement account as
1
Senior Judge Sheila R. Isaac 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.
non-marital property. Because we conclude the trial court erred as a matter of law,
we affirm in part, vacate in part and remand for additional proceedings.
The parties were married in June 1990 and separated in June 2008. At
the time of their divorce, Michael was employed as a school principal, and Melinda
was employed as a social worker’s aide. The parties resolved many of their issues
by executing a property settlement agreement, which was subsequently approved
by the trial court. On March 13, 2009, the court held a hearing to resolve the
contested issues, which included whether to classify Michael’s Kentucky
Teachers’ Retirement Systems (KTRS) account as marital or non-marital property.
At the hearing, discussion between counsel and the court indicated that Melinda’s
(non-KTRS) retirement account was valued at approximately $8,000.00, and
Michael’s KTRS account was valued at approximately $74,000.00. The court
noted that KRS 161.700(2) excludes a KTRS account from classification as martial
property; accordingly, the court classified Michael’s KTRS account as non-marital.
As to Melinda’s non-KTRS account, the court held, pursuant to Shown v. Shown,
233 S.W.3d 718 (Ky. 2007), that her retirement account was also non-marital to
the extent it did not exceed the value of Michael’s KTRS account. After the court
rendered its final judgment in April 2009, Melinda unsuccessfully sought postjudgment relief. She now appeals the court’s decision to classify Michael’s
account as non-marital property.
“On appellate review of a trial court's ruling regarding the
classification of marital property, we review de novo because the trial court's
-2-
classification of property as marital or non-marital is based on its application of
KRS 403.190; thus, it is a question of law.” Heskett v. Heskett, 245 S.W.3d 222,
226 (Ky. App. 2008) (citation omitted).
While KRS 161.700(2) excludes KTRS accounts from classification
as martial property upon divorce, the statute also provides that the exclusion
applies only “to the extent permitted under KRS 403.190(4).” In turn, KRS
403.190(4) provides in relevant part:
If the retirement benefits of one spouse are excepted from
classification as marital property, or not considered as an economic
circumstance during the division of marital property, then the
retirement benefits of the other spouse shall also be excepted, or not
considered, as the case may be. However, the level of exception
provided to the spouse with the greater retirement benefit shall not
exceed the level of exception provided to the other spouse.
In Shown, the Kentucky Supreme Court read the two statutes in conjunction
with one another and found the statutes harmonious. Shown, 233 S.W.3d at 72021. The Court construed the “level of exception” language of KRS 403.190(4) as
applicable to the retirement accounts of either spouse, even where the teacherspouse had a KTRS account that was significantly more valuable than the nonteacher spouse. Id. at 721. The Court concluded, “Both case law and the statutory
language itself demonstrate that KRS 403.190(4) was intended to serve as a
limitation upon exemption statutes such as KRS 161.700(2).” Id.
According to the statutory interpretation enunciated in the Shown
decision, Melinda contends that the court should have classified the portion of
Michael’s KTRS pension, which exceeded the value of Melinda’s retirement
-3-
account, as martial property. On the other hand, Michael contends that the trial
court did not make sufficient findings for this Court to review the issue;
alternatively, he asserts that any error was harmless because of the marital debts
allocated to Michael.
After careful review, we agree with Melinda that the trial court erred
in its interpretation of Shown and the relevant statutes. Here, as in Shown, the
teacher-spouse’s KTRS account exceeded the value of his spouse’s pension. As
Michael’s pension exceeds Melinda’s, KRS 403.190(4) exempts only the portion
of Michael’s KTRS account that does not exceed the value of Melinda’s pension.
Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the judgment regarding the classification of
retirement benefits and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the Butler Circuit Court
is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Steven O. Thornton
Bowling Green, Kentucky
David A. Lanphear
Bowling Green, Kentucky
-4-
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.