EMERSON (DONALD J.) VS. EMERSON (ERIN L.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: MAY 27, 2011; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-000765-MR
DONALD J. EMERSON
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM KENTON FAMILY COURT
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER J. MEHLING, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 06-CI-02211
ERIN L. EMERSON
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: MOORE AND THOMPSON, JUDGES; LAMBERT,1 SENIOR
JUDGE.
LAMBERT, SENIOR JUDGE: Donald Emerson appeals the trial court’s
determination that he was voluntarily under- or unemployed for purposes of
1
Senior Judge Joseph E. Lambert 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.
calculating child support payments. After our review of the record, we discover no
abuse of trial court discretion and affirm.
Erin and Donald Emerson were married on August 22, 1998. It was
the first marriage for both. Three children were born of the marriage, their
birthdates being June of 2000 for their older child, and twins who were born in
October of 2002. The couple separated in August 2006 and a decree of dissolution
was granted by the Kenton Circuit Court. On July 7, 2008, Donald filed a motion
with the Kenton Family Court seeking to suspend his court-ordered child support
payments since he had recently become unemployed. After a hearing, the family
court found that as of October 1, 2008, Donald’s earning capacity was $80,000 and
reduced his child support obligation to $2,467.40 per month. On March 27, 2009,
the family court modified its findings of fact pursuant to Kentucky Revised
Statutes (KRS) 403.212, finding that Donald was voluntarily underemployed.2
Donald secured new employment at a salary significantly reduced
from that which he previously enjoyed. On February 18, 2009, he filed a motion
seeking to modify his child support obligation based upon the substantial change in
circumstances. After a hearing, the family court found Donald was not “forthright
about his sources of income and it appears that he is working two jobs.” The
family court reaffirmed its decision that his earning capacity was $80,000 per year
2
KRS 403.212(d) reads in part: “Potential income shall be determined based upon employment
potential and probable earnings level based on the obligor's or obligee's recent work history,
occupational qualifications, and prevailing job opportunities and earnings levels in the
community. A court may find a parent to be voluntarily unemployed or underemployed without
finding that the parent intended to avoid or reduce the child support obligation.”
-2-
and refused to modify the previously ordered child support amounts. Donald now
seeks our review of the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion
when it found him voluntarily underemployed and attributed an income of $80,000
to him for child support calculation purposes.
“The trial court heard the evidence and saw the witnesses. It is in a
better position than the appellate court to evaluate the situation.” Wells v. Wells,
412 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Ky. 1967). Donald testified that he remained a member of
the Fort Mitchell Country Club but that his monthly spending there was reduced by
15 to 20 percent. He testified he prefers to dine there rather than “Applebee’s or
any other place[.]” He further testified he continued to live at the Drawbridge
Hotel and Convention Center where he paid $1,100 per month in rent. He
provided testimony that he was employed by Academy Rentals at a salary of
$50,000 per year and his biweekly net pay was approximately $1,431.10, which
was direct-deposited into his checking account. On cross-examination, however,
he was unable to explain why his checking account did not show any deposits near
the amount of his alleged pay but instead showed deposits of $2,000 and
$2,131.10.
Erin was also able to introduce evidence that Donald was employed as
an account executive with Best Exposition Services. Donald ultimately
acknowledged he spent at least 80 percent of his working time at Best. He
additionally had applied for unemployment benefits in Ohio prior to accepting
employment with Best and Academy. He was qualified to receive $328 per week
-3-
instead of $435 he would have been eligible to receive had he listed his children on
his application. He never collected any payment. When questioned by the court
how he provided for himself, he responded “with credit cards and help from his
father.”
“The court below made findings of fact which may be set aside only if
clearly erroneous.” Id. We discover nothing in the record that convinces us the
family court’s findings were anything but completely accurate.
The judgment of the Kenton Family Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
John R. Elfers
Covington, Kentucky
J. Eric Rottinghaus
Covington, 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.