MIKELL GRAFTON SKINNER v. WILLIAM F. MCMURRY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JUNE 6, 2003; 2:00 P.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2002-CA-001009-MR
MIKELL GRAFTON SKINNER
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT
HONORABLE JERRY J. BOWLES, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 01-FC-005294
WILLIAM F. MCMURRY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: BAKER AND HUDDLESTON, JUDGES; and JOHN D. MILLER,
SPECIAL JUDGE.1
BAKER, JUDGE.
Mikell Grafton Skinner brings this appeal from a
November 21, 2001, order of the Jefferson Family Court.
We
affirm.
1
Senior Status Judge John D. Miller sitting as Special Judge by assignment of
the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution.
Appellant and appellee were married in 1981, and a
decree dissolved that marriage in September 1994.
The decree
incorporated a property settlement agreement whereby appellee
agreed to pay child support in the amount of $1,500.00 per month
for the benefit of the parties’ two minor children.
In 1996,
that amount was decreased by agreement to $1,300.00 per month,
and in 1999, the amount was increased by agreement to $2,000.00
per month.
In September 2001, appellant filed a motion to
increase child support, and on September 4, 2001, appellee
served upon appellant’s counsel a Request for Production of
Documents and Interrogatories (request for interrogatories).
Appellant failed to timely answer the request for
interrogatories, and as a result, appellee filed a motion to
compel on October 11, 2001.
The Jefferson Family Court entered
an order on October 15, 2001, requiring appellant to “provide
complete answers and complete copies of all documents . . . to
[appellee’s] Attorney on or before 30th of October 2001.”
Thereafter, appellee’s counsel sent a letter to appellant’s
counsel dated November 1, 2001, requesting answers to the
request for interrogatories.
In response, appellant’s counsel
sent a letter dated November 7, 2001, to appellee’s counsel
which enclosed a copy of appellant’s 2000 tax return and stated
that appellant had complied with the request for
2
interrogatories.
Thereupon, appellee filed a motion to dismiss
for failure to answer the request for interrogatories.
A
hearing was held on the motion to dismiss, and appellant’s
counsel failed to appear.
flu on that day.
Appellant alleged that she had the
The family court granted appellee’s Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed appellant’s motion to increase child
support.
Appellant then filed a motion to reconsider the
dismissal.
The court ultimately held a hearing on appellant’s
motion to reconsider; on April 12, 2002, the family court denied
the motion thus precipitating this appeal.
Appellant contends the family court erred by
dismissing her motion to increase child support.
Specifically,
appellant contends that the sanction of dismissal is a draconian
sanction and that the family court abused its discretion by
imposing same.
We must disagree.
The interrogatories served upon appellant requested
that appellant provide a current list of mortgages, loans,
debts, liabilities or other obligations of appellant.
It also
requested a list of expenditures and expenses paid by appellant
for the benefit of the parties’ two minor children and a list of
gross receipts from any business in which appellant may have an
interest.
Appellant believes that she is not required to create
such lists and states that she does not have in her possession
such lists.
We think that appellee was indeed entitled to such
3
lists.
We observe that the parties’ income were above the child
support guidelines; therefore, evidence of income and expenses
were relevant to the determination of child support.
Revised Statute 403.211.
Kentucky
Moreover, we are of the opinion that
appellant’s continual refusal to answer the interrogatories
formed a sufficient basis upon which to justify the circuit
court’s dismissal of the current action.
It is well established
that dismissal of an action is an appropriate sanction where a
party has failed to respond to interrogatories.
Benjamin v.
Near East Rug Co., Inc., Ky., 535 S.W.2d 848 (1976); Naive v.
Jones, Ky., 353 S.W.2d 365 (1961).
We also note that appellant
has suffered little prejudice by the dismissal as appellant may
file another motion to increase child support.
Upon the whole,
we are unable to conclude that the family court abused its
discretion by dismissing appellant’s motion to increase child
support.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Jefferson
Family Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Thomas E. Clay
Louisville, KY
Teresa M. Kinberger
Louisville, KY
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.
