ALICIA DIANNE BENNETT FORMERLY GOLDSMITH v. MARTIN GLENN GOLDSMITH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
November 22, 2002; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2001-CA-002118-MR
ALICIA DIANNE BENNETT
FORMERLY GOLDSMITH
v.
CROSS-APPELLANT
CROSS-APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE KEVIN L. GARVEY, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 98-FC-009319
MARTIN GLENN GOLDSMITH
CROSS-APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
COMBS, DYCHE, AND MILLER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE: Alicia Dianne Bennett brings this cross-appeal
from an August 15, 2001 order of the Jefferson Circuit Court.
We
affirm.
Alicia Bennett and Martin Goldsmith were married
September 3, 1995.
One child was born of the marriage, Zachary
Bennett Goldsmith, on November 25, 1996.
A domestic violence
order (DVO) was entered against Goldsmith in 1997, restraining
him from coming within 500 feet of Bennett.
arrested in 1998 for violating the DVO.
Goldsmith was
Bennett and Goldsmith
were divorced May 10, 1999, and Bennett was subsequently awarded
sole custody of Zachary.
In August 1999, Goldsmith was again
arrested for violating the DVO.
In late 1999 after Goldsmith returned Zachary following
visitation, Bennett undressed Zachary for his bath and discovered
Goldsmith had written messages in ink on the child’s back and
arm.
Also in 1999, Goldsmith took Zachary to a speech therapist
without Bennett’s knowledge or consent.
Early in 2000, Goldsmith agreed to suspend his
visitation rather than have it supervised.
He was ordered by the
court to refrain from harassing Zachary’s daycare workers,
medical providers and speech therapist.
Goldsmith was ultimately
allowed visitation on the condition it was supervised by
Zachary’s paternal grandparents.
The grandparents were required
to file a statement with the court indicating their willingness
to supervise visitation based on an agreement between Bennett and
Goldsmith.1
Goldsmith was also ordered to undergo a psychiatric
evaluation with one Dr. Edward Berla.
Goldsmith did not visit
the court ordered physician, but instead went to a doctor of his
own choosing, one Dr. Paul Mann.
Dr. Mann recommended that
before Goldsmith be allowed unsupervised visitation that
Goldsmith complete the court recommended psychiatric evaluation,
comply with any treatment therefrom, and complete a parent
education course.
As of October 5, 2000, Goldsmith failed to
comply with Dr. Mann’s recommendations, and a request by
1
Zachary’s grandparents never filed the required statement
with the court.
-2-
Goldsmith to resume visitation was denied.
Between January 2000
and October 2000, Goldsmith did not attempt to exercise the
supervised visitation permitted by the court.
In that period of
time, Goldsmith was also arrested a third time for violation of
the DVO.
Tennessee.
In mid-2000, Bennett and Zachary relocated to
In October 2000, as a result of Goldsmith’s repeated
attempts to intimidate Bennett’s counsel, a restraining order was
entered against him prohibiting him from coming within 500 feet
of Bennett’s counsel.
Between November 28, 2000 and December 28, 2000, it
appears Goldsmith filed some eighteen pro se motions.
The
motions included requests for production of a non-existent
deposition, and that “anyone . . . caught lying in this case
. . . serve one year in jail.”
Goldsmith also propounded
numerous irrelevant interrogatories and made at least two
apparently unfounded complaints to the bar association against
Bennett’s counsel.
In January 2001, the court ruled on several motions,
ordering, inter alia, that Goldsmith pay Bennett $6,000.00 in
attorney’s fees, and that Goldsmith be allowed telephonic
visitation with Zachary, on condition the calls were recorded.
The telephonic visitation was suspended because Goldsmith began
harassing Zachary about Zachary’s speech, told Zachary the speech
was a result of Bennett’s having abused alcohol during pregnancy,
and, knowing the calls were recorded, addressed the circuit court
judge personally.
Goldsmith continued filing numerous pro se
motions with the court.
-3-
Bennett moved the court for Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 11
sanctions and for attorney’s fees.
On August 15, 2001, the court
entered an order sanctioning Goldsmith $500.00 for CR 11
violations, and awarding Bennett $1,000.00 in attorney’s fees.
Goldsmith appealed in Appeal No. 2001-CA-001853-MR.
Bennett
cross-appealed in Cross Appeal No. 2001-CA-002118-MR.
failed to file a prehearing statement.
Goldsmith
This Court entered an
order for Goldsmith to show cause why his appeal should not be
dismissed for failure to file the prehearing statement.
Goldsmith made no response and his appeal was dismissed.
Thus,
only Bennett’s appeal is before us.2
Bennett contends the circuit court erred in sanctioning
Goldsmith only $500.00 under CR 11, which provides in pertinent
part:
The signature of an attorney or party
constitutes a certification by him that he
has read the pleading, motion or other paper;
that to the best of his knowledge,
information, and belief formed after
reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in
fact and is warranted by existing law or a
good faith argument for the extension,
modification or reversal of existing law, and
that it is not interposed for any improper
purpose, such as to harass or to cause
unnecessary delay or needless increase in the
cost of litigation.
Our standard of review is whether the circuit court
abused its discretion in determining the amount of sanctions
imposed.
Clark Equipment Company, Inc., v. Bowman, Ky. App., 762
2
Goldsmith did not file a brief in this appeal and crossappeal.
-4-
S.W.2d 417 (1988).
Following a lengthy recitation of facts, the
circuit court, in its order, writes:
[Goldsmith] has displayed absolute disregard
of this Court, Its [sic] Orders, [Bennett],
and, most disturbingly, his own child.
[Goldsmith’s] actions in this matter could
never be construed as acting in the best
interest of the child. He has an agenda, and
he continues to play it out. However, the
Court strongly admonishes [Goldsmith] to curb
his obsession with harassing [Bennett], or
stand prepared to face further sanctions by
this Court.
Clearly, the circuit court considered Goldsmith’s
repugnant behavior and was aware of the reasons therefor.
As
such, we cannot say the circuit court abused its discretion in
setting the CR 11 sanctions against Goldsmith in the amount of
$500.00.
We recognize the egregiousness of Goldsmith’s conduct,
and note that, in the absence of Goldsmith’s “curbing” his
behavior, the circuit court indeed would be well within its
discretion in ordering further sanctions against him.
Bennett maintains the circuit court erred by awarding
her only $1,000.00 in attorney’s fees.
Awarding of attorney’s
fees in domestic relation actions is governed by Kentucky Revised
Statutes 403.220, which reads, in pertinent part:
The court from time to time after considering
the financial resources of both parties may
order a party to pay a reasonable amount for
the cost to the other party of maintaining or
defending any proceeding under this chapter
and for attorney’s fees . . . .
The awarding of attorney’s fees is entirely within the discretion
of the court, and is not mandatory.
Underwood v. Underwood, Ky.
App., 836 S.W.2d 439 (1992), overruled upon other grounds by
Neidlinger v. Neidlinger, Ky., 52 S.W.3d 513 (2001).
-5-
In its opinion, the circuit court writes:
A review of the countless motions filed
in this matter serve as the cornerstone for
the Court’s finding that [Goldsmith] has been
on a mission to make life miserable for
[Goldsmith] in light of the prior Court
orders. Furthermore, [Goldsmith’s]
inappropriate conversation as noted earlier
in this opinion regarding the engagement of
counsel by his parents lends further support
to the Court’s belief that [Goldsmith] finds
satisfaction in [Bennett] having to incur
fees by employing counsel to defend against
fruitless motions. [Goldsmith] all but admits
to his son that he will do whatever it takes,
particularly since someone is now footing the
bills for him, to once again attack [Bennett]
and put her on the defense.
For the reasons hereinabove stated, we conclude the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining the
amount of attorney’s fees awarded to Bennett.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Jefferson
Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR CROSS-APPELLANT:
NO BRIEF FILED FOR CROSSAPPELLEE.
Diana L. Skaggs
Sandra Ragland
Louisville, Kentucky
-6-
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.
