MICHAEL RAY CROLEY v. DEBORAH JUNE CROLEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JULY 2, 2004; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2002-CA-002613-MR
MICHAEL RAY CROLEY
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN L. BATES, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 02-CI-00036
DEBORAH JUNE CROLEY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
GUIDUGLI AND KNOPF, JUDGES; EMBERTON, SENIOR JUDGE.1
GUIDUGLI, JUDGE.
Michael Ray Croley (hereinafter “Michael”)
appeals from several orders of the Owen Circuit Court which
required him to pay “his pendente lite obligations of $523.92 in
child support and $664.75 for his share of the parties’ mortgage
for the months of August and September, 2002.”
1
We believe his
Senior Judge Thomas D. Emberton sitting as Special Judge by
assignment of the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the
Kentucky Constitution and KRS 21.580.
argument that “he was treated unfairly and unreasonably” is not
support by the record, thus, we affirm.
Michael and Deborah June Croley (hereinafter
“Deborah”) were married on December 30, 1989.
One child, Tommy
Nash Croley, was born of the parties on July 26, 1996.
The
parties separated on June 1, 2001, and Michael filed for a
petition for dissolution of marriage on January 29, 2002.
The
Owen Circuit Court entered pendente lite orders on May 5, 2002.
The orders entered included the following temporary orders which
are relevant to this appeal:
3. IT IS ORDERED that effective April,
2002, [Michael] shall pay [Deborah] the sum
of $523.92 monthly child support pursuant to
the Kentucky Child Support Guidelines, with
a Child Support Worksheet being attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1.
...
5. IT IS ORDERED that effective April,
2002, Petitioner shall pay one-half (1/2),
or $664.75 to Respondent for application
towards the monthly mortgage payment on the
improvements at 10 Highway 35, Sparta,
Kentucky 41086.
The matter proceeded to a final hearing on the
contested matter on August 5, 2002.
At that time, the parties
informed the court that they had reached an agreement and
desired to have it read into the record.
Following the hearing,
Deborah’s attorney prepared a custody and property settlement
agreement which was forwarded to Michael’s attorney for the
-2-
necessary signatures.
The proposed settlement agreement
addressed those matters previously discussed, agreed to, and
entered into the record on August 5, 2002.
Relevant to this
appeal, the paragraphs which addressed child support and the
transfer of the marital property are as follows:
CHILD SUPPORT:
1. The parties agree that Mike shall
continue to pay Debbie current child support
of $523.92 per month. Mike shall provide
health insurance for Nash, and the parties
will divide any medical, counseling, dental
or prescription medicine expenses for Nash
as stated by the Court in its Temporary
Order in this case.
2. The tax exemption for Nash will be
awarded to the parent who has Spring Break
that year. Therefore, Mike shall claim the
exemption for the year 2002 and Debbie will
claim Nash every odd year thereafter.
10 Highway 35, SPARTA, KENTUCKY:
1. Mike agrees to Quit Claim to Debbie his
interest in the property at 10 Highway 35,
Sparta, Kentucky for the sum of $10,000.00.
Debbie agrees to refinance the existing
mortgage to First Farmers Bank which has a
present balance of $136,425.17 and to remove
Mike from any liability upon said
indebtedness. A closing of this transaction
shall occur within 60 days from August 5,
2002.
Michael did not sign the prepared settlement agreement
but instead raised two new issues relating to visitation.
issues were as follows:
-3-
Those
(1)
How to alternate fall break visitation
with the parties’ child.
(2)
The husband’s right of first refusal to
care for the parties’ child in the
event that the wife was away from home.
In that Michael had not signed the proposed agreement, had not
paid his pendente lite obligations, and since Deborah had
secured the necessary financing to close on the house and
transfer the required $10,000 to Michael, Deborah’s attorney
filed a show cause motion on September 4, 2002.
The motion
requested an order for Michael to show cause why he should not
be held in contempt for his failure to pay child support and
mortgage payments previously ordered and to show cause why he
failed to sign the settlement agreement entered upon the record
on August 5, 2002.
The show cause motion was noticed to be
heard on September 10, 2002.
On September 9, 2002, Michael’s
attorney served, by fax, a motion entitled “Objection to Motion
and Request to Reschedule” on opposing counsel and the court.
In the motion, Michael gave notice to the court that he was
unavailable for the scheduled September 10, 2002, hearing and
requested a continuance to a mutually convenient time.
On September 10, 2002, the circuit court entered the
following decree of dissolution of marriage and order which
forms the basis of Michael’s appeal:
This matter having come before the
Court on September 10, 2002 pursuant to
-4-
notice and the Court having considered said
Motion and Petitioner’s objection and
request to reschedule and being advised, now
Finds and Orders as follows:
1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
motions of the Respondent shall be and the
same are hereby Granted. Petitioner shall
pay his Pendente Lite obligations of $523.92
in child support and $664.75 for his share
of the parties’ mortgage for the months of
August and September, 2002 as Petitioner has
failed to sign the Custody & Property
Settlement Agreement placed upon this
Court’s record on August 5, 2002.
Respondent is granted the right to deduct
the aforementioned unpaid sums from the lump
sum settlement of $10,000.00 due to
Petitioner.
2. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Custody and Property Settlement Agreement
including the terms and conditions thereof
filed with Respondent’s motion and served on
September 3, 2002 are hereby adopted as the
Orders of this Court and are incorporated
herein by reference.
3. IT IS ORDERED that the marriage of
the Petitioner Michael Ray Croley and the
Respondent Deborah June Croley shall be and
the same is hereby dissolved restoring to
each of parties all the rights and
privileges of single persons.
4. IT IS ORDERED that the Master
Commissioner of this Court shall cause to be
prepared a Master Commissioner’s Deed
conveying Petitioner’s interest in the
parties’ property located at 10 Highway 35,
Sparta, Kentucky to Respondent. The Master
Commissioner’s cost shall be paid by
Petitioner and deducted from his
aforementioned $10,000.00 payment.
5. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the
Petitioner shall reimburse Respondent for
-5-
her attorney’s fees incurred in the filing
and pursuit of this Order.
There being no just cause for delay,
this is a Final and Appealable Order.
This 10th day of September, 2002.
On appeal, Michael contends the order requiring him to
pay child support and his mortgage obligation for August and
September is “unfair” and “unreasonable.”
He goes on to argue
that “[t]o be judged guilty of delay in the absence of
opportunity to be heard is capricious.”
He also adds that “[t]o
be ordered to pay additional payments on a house which he had
“sold” on August 5, 2002, by means of his agreement with the
wife is punitive in the extreme and an abuse of discretion.”
We
disagree and believe his contentions to be meritless.
KRS 403.160 permits temporary orders relating to
maintenance and child support.
In this matter, the Owen Circuit
Court entered a temporary order requiring Michael to pay child
support and one-half of the monthly mortgage.
Pursuant to KRS
403.160(6)(c), temporary orders do not terminate until the final
decree is entered or the petition is voluntarily dismissed.
In
this case, the final decree was not entered until September 10,
2002, and only then at the specific request of Deborah.
It
cannot be disputed that Michael was obligated under the
previously entered temporary order to pay both child support and
his share of the monthly mortgage until the final decree was
-6-
entered.
As such, he was legally obligated to pay both his
child support and proportional share of the mortgage for both
months in question.
Although he may be upset with the manner in
which the hearing transpired, his appeal has no legal basis.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Owen
Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Neil E. Duncliffe
Georgetown, KY
Michael L. Judy
Frankfort, KY
-7-
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.
