CYNTHIA HUNTER v. RONALD HUNTER; CANER HUNTER; AND BETTY HUNTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
JULY 3, 2003; 2:00 p.m.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2002-CA-000519-MR
CYNTHIA HUNTER
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FLOYD CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JULIE PAXTON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 01-CI-00212
RONALD HUNTER; CANER HUNTER;
AND BETTY HUNTER
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: BUCKINGHAM, McANULTY, AND PAISLEY, JUDGES.
BUCKINGHAM, JUDGE.
Cynthia Hunter appeals from an order of the
Floyd Circuit Court which included the disposition of property
upon dissolution of the marriage between Cynthia and Ronald
Hunter.
Cynthia challenges the assignment of the remainder
interest in certain real property to Ronald as his nonmarital
property acquired through gift from his parents, Caner and Betty
Hunter.
We affirm.
Cynthia and Ronald Hunter were married in November
1978 and separated in March 2001.
On January 1, 1982, Caner and
Betty Hunter conveyed their interest, with reservation of a life
estate, in two tracts of land by deed to Cynthia and Ronald as
joint tenants with right of survivorship.
The deed stated that
the property was being conveyed “for and in consideration of the
sum of One dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, and in further
consideration of the love and affection the parties of the first
part have for their son, the male grantee herein.”
The property
included a house on one of the tracts, which became Cynthia and
Ronald’s marital residence,1 and was located next to the property
on which Caner and Betty Hunter resided.
Shortly thereafter, the parties constructed a detached
two-car garage, a barn, and an outbuilding for use connected
with an above-ground swimming pool on the property.
1985, a fire destroyed the parties’ residence.
In December
A few months
later, a new house was built with $90,000 in insurance proceeds
from a homeowner’s insurance policy on the home.
On March 8, 2001, Ronald filed a petition for
dissolution of marriage in which he sought to be awarded his
nonmarital property and an equitable portion of the parties’
marital property.
In May 2001, pursuant to a motion filed by
Cynthia, Caner and Betty Hunter were added as parties because of
1
This tract had been purchased by Caner and Betty Hunter in October
1981 for $90,000.
2
their life estate interest in the real property.
In their
discovery documents, Cynthia sought equal division of the real
property as marital property, exclusive of any claimed interest
by Caner and Betty Hunter; whereas, Ronald requested an award of
the real property as his nonmarital property.
At a hearing held before the domestic relations
commissioner (DRC) on October 15, 2001, Cynthia, Ronald, Caner,
and Betty Hunter all testified.
Caner and Betty Hunter
testified that they would not have included Cynthia on the deed
except for the fact that she and Ronald were married.
Cynthia
also acknowledged that she was included on the deed only because
she was married to Ronald.
On January 7, 2002, the DRC issued a report containing
recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree of
dissolution of marriage.
First, the DRC held that Caner and
Betty retained a life estate interest in the realty.
He also
found that the real property, including the marital residence,
was a gift to Ronald from his parents and assigned the remainder
interest in it to him as his nonmarital property.
However, the
DRC held that the improvements to the property by addition of
the barn, garage, and outbuilding constituted marital property.
He placed a current value on the realty of $110,000, with
$93,000 being Ronald’s nonmarital portion based on contributions
from Caner and Betty Hunter, and $17,000 being marital property
3
based on contributions from Cynthia and Ronald.
The DRC valued
the remainder interest in the improvements or enhanced value of
the property at $8,000 and divided it equally with Cynthia and
Ronald each receiving $4,000.
On January 11, 2002, Cynthia filed exceptions to the
recommended divorce decree that, among other things, challenged
the DRC’s findings on the distribution and valuation of the real
property.
On the same day, January 11, 2002, the DRC entered a
recommended addendum order “upon further reflection,” granting
Cynthia a $10,000 lump sum for maintenance.2
On January 22,
2002, Ronald filed exceptions to the DRC’s original recommended
divorce decree and the addendum order.
The circuit court held a
hearing on the exceptions and rendered an order sustaining
certain exceptions and amending the decree, but overruling a
majority of the exceptions including those involving the real
property and adopting the DRC’s recommended judgment on that
issue.
This appeal followed.
We begin with a statement of our standard of review.
Under CR3 52.01, in an action tried without a jury, “[f]indings
of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due
2
It is not clear what precipitated this order because Cynthia did not
raise this issue in her exceptions.
3
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
4
regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to
judge the credibility of the witnesses.
The findings of a
commissioner, to the extent that the court adopts them, shall be
considered as the findings of the court.”
See also Greater
Cincinnati Marine Service, Inc. v. City of Ludlow, Ky., 602
S.W.2d 427 (1980).
A factual finding is not clearly erroneous
if it is supported by substantial evidence.
Owens-Corning
Fiberglas Corp. v. Golightly, Ky., 976 S.W.2d 409, 414 (1998);
Uninsured Employers’ Fund v. Garland, Ky., 805 S.W.2d 116, 117
(1991).
Substantial evidence is evidence, when taken alone or
in light of all the evidence, which has sufficient probative
value to induce conviction in the mind of a reasonable person.
Golightly, 976 S.W.2d at 414; Sherfey v. Sherfey, Ky. App., 74
S.W.3d 777, 782 (2002).
legal issues de novo.
An appellate court, however, reviews
See, e.g., Carroll v. Meredith, Ky. App.,
59 S.W.3d 484, 489 (2001).
Cynthia contends the trial court erred in assigning
Ronald the residential property as his nonmarital property,
rather than characterizing it as marital property.
More
specifically, she challenges the court’s finding that this
property was a gift to Ronald alone.
5
Under KRS4 403.190, the trial court’s division of
property involves a three-step process: (1) characterizing each
item of property as marital or nonmarital;5 (2) assigning each
party’s nonmarital property to that party;6 and (3) equitably
dividing the marital property between the parties.7
v. Travis, Ky., 59 S.W.3d 904, 909 (2001).
See Travis
Property acquired by
either spouse subsequent to the marriage is presumed to be
marital property, except for certain enumerated types including
property acquired by gift.
KRS 403.190(2).
The party claiming
property acquired after the marriage as his/her nonmarital
property through the gift exception bears the burden of proof on
that issue.8
Travis, 59 S.W.3d at 912; Adams v. Adams, Ky. App.,
565 S.W.2d 169 (1978).
4
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
5
See KRS 403.190 (2) and (3).
6
KRS 403.190(1).
7
KRS 403.190(1) (court to divide marital property “in just proportions
considering all relevant factors”).
8
Several cases state that a party asserting a nonmarital interest in
property by gift must present “clear and convincing evidence” to rebut
the marital property presumption. The court in Underwood v.
Underwood, Ky. App., 836 S.W.2d 439 (1992), provided an extensive
discussion critical of imposing this higher standard, suggesting that
the proper standard should be by a preponderance of the evidence.
Although the court in Travis did not specifically decide this issue,
its opinion indicates agreement with the analysis in the Underwood
case that the preponderance of the evidence standard is the proper
standard of proof necessary to rebut the presumption.
6
Whether title is held individually or in some form of
co-ownership, such as joint tenancy, tenancy in common, or
tenancy by the entirety is not determinative in classifying
property as marital or nonmarital.
KRS 403.190(3).
Factors
relevant to determining whether particular property was a gift
include the source of the money used to purchase the item, the
intent of the donor, and the status of the marriage at the time
of the transfer.
S.W.2d 493 (1980).
See, e.g., O’Neill v. O’Neill, Ky. App., 600
However, the intent of the purported donor
is considered the primary factor in determining whether a
transfer of property is a gift.
See, e.g., Underwood v.
Underwood, Ky. App., 836 S.W.2d 439, 442 (1992), overruled in
part on other grounds by Neidlinger v. Neidlinger, Ky., 52
S.W.3d 513 (2001); Clark v. Clark, Ky. App., 782 S.W.2d 56, 63
(1990).
Whether property is considered a gift for purposes of a
divorce proceeding is a factual issue subject to the clearly
erroneous standard of review.
See, e.g., Ghali v. Ghali, Ky.
App., 596 S.W.2d 31 (1980); Adams, supra.
In rendering its judgment, the trial court relied in
part on Angel v. Angel, Ky. App., 562 S.W.2d 661 (1978).
In
Angel, the court held that a tract of land conveyed to the
divorcing parties by the brother of the wife without any
consideration was a gift that should have been treated as the
wife’s nonmarital property under KRS 403.190.
7
Id. at 665.
The
court noted that under KRS 403.190(3), in assigning each spouse
his or her separate property, record title is not controlling.
Id.
The court stated that the real property conveyed jointly to
the married couple should be considered the wife’s nonmarital
property “unless the trial court finds that [the husband] was
named as a grantee for a reason other than his marriage to [the
wife].”
Id.
Cynthia contends that the trial court improperly
relied on Angel.
She maintains that Calloway v. Calloway, Ky.
App., 832 S.W.2d 890 (1992), is the controlling case.
In
Calloway, the husband’s parents conveyed to the couple a parcel
of real property valued at $10,000 on which the marital home was
later built.
The trial court classified the parcel as
nonmarital property and awarded the husband $10,000 as his
nonmarital interest in the lot.
This court reversed the trial
court’s classification of the parcel as nonmarital property and
stated as follows:
KRS 403.190 does not directly address the
nature of a gift from a third party to both
spouses, and surprisingly, no Kentucky
appellate court has had occasion to address
the question. R. Petrilli, Kentucky Family
Law, § 24.8, at 300 (1988). Based on the
Kentucky legislature’s clear intent that
jointly owned property acquired during the
marriage be divided upon dissolution in just
proportions, we now hold that gifts during
marriage from third parties to both spouses
shall be treated as marital property upon
dissolution. This holding, we believe, is a
8
natural outgrowth of KRS 403.190, and is
consistent with both the Uniform Marriage &
Divorce Act and the limited number of
decisions in other jurisdictions which have
addressed the issue. Forsythe v. Forsythe,
558 S.W.2d 675 (Mo. App. 1977).
Id. at 893.
We agree with the trial court that Calloway does not
compel a different result.
The court in Calloway was attempting
to deal with various approaches to the interpretation of KRS
403.190 (2) and (3) in that these provisions speak in terms of
property acquired by “either” spouse, without specifically
addressing property acquired by “both” spouses.9
Petrilli, cited
by the Calloway court, identified three possible approaches:
(1) KRS 403.190 is inapplicable and property law would determine
9
KRS 403.190 states in part:
(2) For the purpose of this chapter, "marital property" means all
property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage except:
(a) Property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent
during the marriage and the income derived therefrom unless
there are significant activities of either spouse which
contributed to the increase in value of said property and the
income earned therefrom;
(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.
9
the interests of each, i.e., ownership based on the deed alone;
(2) the presumption of KRS 403.190(2) applies but can be
overcome by proof of gift and the document of title is
irrelevant as expressed in KRS 403.190(3); and (3) the marital
presumption of KRS 403.190(2) is overcome by evidence of gift
and it is considered nonmarital property with the respective
interests determined by the documents and intent of the donor.
See, e.g., Grant v. Grant, 424 A.2d 139 (Me. 1981)(discussing
two of the options).
The language in Calloway suggests the
court opted for the second approach in deciding the real
property in that case should have been classified as marital
property and divided according to the factors enunciated in KRS
403.190(1)(a)-(d).
Unfortunately, application of Calloway is
complicated by the lack of discussion of the operative facts
related to the real property10 and its conclusion that the
property was “clearly” a gift to both parties.
The court’s
statement that no Kentucky appellate court had addressed the
issue is puzzling in light of the existence of the prior Angel
decision.
10
The bulk of the Calloway opinion involved a race car that had been
transferred to the couple by the wife’s mother and was used and
maintained by the couple.
10
The Angel court predicated its decision on a finding
that KRS 403.190 was consistent with the prior restoration
statutes that attempted to restore to the wife property deeded
to a married couple jointly by the wife’s relatives where the
husband was included in the deed solely because of his marriage
to the wife.
While there appears to be some tension between
Angel and Calloway as far as the evidentiary burdens associated
with a conveyance to a married couple in that Angel places a
burden on the claimant seeking to include the property in the
marital estate, whereas, Calloway places the burden on the party
seeking nonmarital status of the property, KRS 403.190(3)
evidences a legislative intent to eschew documentary title as
conclusive.
Even if KRS 403.190(3) were construed to create a
marital presumption, the interrelationship between subsection
(3) and subsection (2)(a) indicates that the presumption can be
rebutted by evidence of a gift intended for one spouse
regardless of the documentary title.
This is consistent with
both Calloway and Angel and the source of funds rule
underpinning both statutory and case law to determine marital
and nonmarital interests in property.
See, e.g., Travis, 59
S.W.3d at 909 n. 10 (describing the source of funds rule).
As
one noted commentator stated, “The Calloway rule is not
different from the Angel rule since both attempt to effectuate
11
the intent of the donor.”
Louise E. Graham and Hon. James E.
Keller, 15 Kentucky Practice:
at 521 (2d ed. 1997).
Domestic Relations Law, § 15.18
See also Petrilli, supra at § 24.8
(stating the presumption of marital property can be overcome,
for instance, by proof that the gift was intended by the donor
to be to one spouse, and the other spouse’s name was placed on
the document by the donor as a formality).
In determining the
intent of the donor, a court should look at all the
circumstances such as statements of the donor, statements of the
spouses, the tax treatment of the gift, whether the gift was
jointly titled, the relationship of the parties, and the
intended use of the property.
Distribution:
See, Deborah H. Bell, Equitable
Implementing the Marital Partnership Theory
through the Dual Classification System, 67 Miss. L.J. 115, 144
(1997).
In the current case, Caner and Betty Hunter testified
that they intended to give the real property to their son,
Ronald, and included Cynthia on the deed solely because of her
marriage to him.
Cynthia also admitted on cross-examination
that she was unaware of any reason she was included on the deed
other than her being married to Ronald.
The deed itself stated
as consideration for the conveyance, the love and affection of
Ronald’s parents for him.
We believe the trial court’s factual
finding that the conveyance was a gift intended solely for
12
Ronald was not clearly erroneous and was sufficient to overcome
the marital property presumption.
Contrary to Cynthia’s position, the fact that the
current house was built with insurance proceeds does not alter
our conclusion.
The proceeds merely served to replace the value
of the residence that was Ronald’s existing nonmarital property.
As the trial court held, only the increase in value of the
property due to the joint efforts of the parties during the
marriage constituted marital property.
Cynthia also criticizes the DRC’s valuation and
division of the marital portion of the real property.
The DRC
valued the nonmarital portion at $93,000 and the marital
portion, made up of the cost of the improvements consisting of
the barn and garage, at $17,000 for a total value of $110,000.
Ronald testified that the parties received $90,000 in insurance
proceeds and then contributed an additional $7,000 to rebuild
the house.
However, there is no documentary evidence to support
this testimony and Cynthia introduced the written contract to
build the house at a cost of $87,000.
In addition, Ronald
testified he built the garage for $12,000 and the barn for
$3,000.
Cynthia testified the cost of the garage was between
$12,000-$15,000, and she could not remember the cost of the
barn.
13
It is unclear how the DRC derived his individual
valuation figures for the real property and they appear to be
clearly erroneous, but the errors are harmless.
Because the
parties failed to provide any independent expert evidence on the
fair market value of the real property and the DRC based the
marital portion, or increased value in the property, solely on
the improvements, any error in the valuation of the nonmarital
portion would be irrelevant since it would belong to Ronald
regardless of the amount.
Also, the $17,000 figure actually
exceeded the amounts attributed to the barn and garage by the
parties, which benefited Cynthia because she received one-half
of that figure.
Thus, she has not shown that any error by the
DRC and the trial court in valuing the real property adversely
affected her.
Finally, Cynthia seeks reversal of the trial court’s
rulings on the appellees’ exceptions to the DRC’s recommended
report.
She argues that the court should not have considered
the exceptions because they were untimely.
The appellees filed
their exceptions approximately 14 days after the DRC’s initial
recommended report was entered and the notice of entry was sent
to the parties.
In Eiland v. Ferrell, Ky., 937 S.W.2d 713
(1997), the court held that a trial court has discretion whether
to consider objections or exceptions to a domestic relations
commissioner’s recommended report beyond the 10-day period set
14
forth in CR 53.06(2).11
Id. at 716-17.
It indicated that
parties are obligated to file objections to domestic relations
commissioners’ reports in order to preserve issues other than
sufficiency of the evidence for appellate review.
Nevertheless,
“where it appears that untimely objections have been considered,
no sound policy prevents appellate review.”
Id. at 717.
Consequently, the trial court had discretion to consider
appellees’ exceptions even though they were untimely filed, and
Cynthia is not entitled to reversal of the court’s rulings on
those exceptions based on untimeliness.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the
Floyd Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
John T. Chafin
Prestonsburg, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE—RONALD D.
HUNTER:
Jerry A. Patton
Prestonsburg, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES—CANER
HUNTER AND BETTY G. HUNTER:
Gregory D. Stumbo
Prestonsburg, Kentucky
11
CR 53.06(2) states that “[w]ithin 10 days after being served with
notice of the filing of the report any party may serve written
objections thereto upon the other parties. . . .”
15
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.