MICHAEL C. ROSE v. PATRICIA F. AMIS-ROSE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JUNE 2, 2000; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1999-CA-001827-MR
MICHAEL C. ROSE
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM MARSHALL CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DENNIS FOUST, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 95-CI-00254
v.
PATRICIA F. AMIS-ROSE
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
GUDGEL, CHIEF JUDGE; DYCHE, AND MILLER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE:
Michael C. Rose appeals from a July 7, 1999,
Order of the Marshall Circuit Court.
We affirm.
Michael and Patricia F. Amis-Rose were divorced on
December 1, 1995.
The decree of dissolution reserved for later
adjudication all remaining issues.
On July 26, 1996, the circuit
court entered a “Recommended Agreed Order” settling all such
issues.
Pursuant to said order, each party was “responsible for
credit cards or other consumer indebtedness incurred solely in
their name during the marriage and shall hold the other harmless
from any claim from said creditors.”
In addition, Michael was
awarded certain property, located in Marshall County, titled in
both of their names.
Patricia was ordered to convey all interest
in said property by quitclaim deed.
On September 5, 1996, she
signed a quitclaim deed -- conveying all her interest in said
property -- and delivered it to Michael.
Michael neglected to
record the quitclaim deed until some two and one-half years later
on March 29, 1999.
In the interim, Patricia failed to settle
her debt with Providian Bancorp, a debt she incurred during
marriage.
Pursuant to the Agreed Order, she was solely
responsible for this debt.
Providian obtained a judgment against
her, and on June 7, 1997, a judgment lien was filed in the
Marshall County Court Clerk’s Office, affecting all real estate
held in Patricia’s name.
As the quitclaim deed was not recorded,
the aforementioned property was still in Patricia’s name and,
thus, attached.
Upon learning of the lien, Michael petitioned the
circuit court to require Patricia to show cause why she should
not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the agreed
order.
On July 7, 1999, the circuit court entered an order
declining to hold Patricia in contempt of court.
on the court’s belief that
Such was based
Michael’s inaction was the cause of
the lien being placed on his property.
The court, nevertheless,
noted that Patricia was obligated, under the agreed order, to
indemnify and to hold Michael harmless for this debt.
This
appeal followed.
Michael argues the circuit court erred by failing to
hold Patricia in contempt of court.
In Smith v. City of Loyall,
Ky. App., 702 S.W.2d 838 (1986), this Court opined that a trial
-2-
court has almost “unlimited discretion” in exercising its civil
contempt powers.
Regardless of whether we may have held to the
contrary, we cannot say the circuit court abused its discretion
in this matter.
Although Patricia did not satisfy her debt with
Providian, it was not immediately apparently that her failure to
do so would cast a cloud on Michael’s property.
Furthermore, she
is required to indemnify Michael if he incurs loss as a result of
the judgment lien being placed on his property.
In sum, we
cannot say the circuit court erred in refusing to hold Patricia
in contempt for noncompliance with the
agreed order.
If Michael
actually incurs a loss, the matter may be revisited, and the
circuit court may, of course, fashion an appropriate remedy with
incarceration being of last resort.
For the foregoing reasons, the Order of the Marshall
Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Robert L. Prince
Benton, Kentucky
Patricia F. Amis-Rose, Pro Se
Hardin, Kentucky
-3-
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.
