KAISER (WILLIAM HUMPHREY) VS. KAISER (RAVEN JOLEE)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2008; 2:00 P.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2007-CA-002430-ME
WILLIAM HUMPHREY KAISER, III
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON FAMILY COURT
HONORABLE PAULA SHERLOCK, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 06-CI-504632
RAVEN JOLEE KAISER
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: MOORE AND THOMPSON, JUDGES, HENRY,1 SENIOR JUDGE.
MOORE, JUDGE: William Humphrey Kaiser, III (William), appeals the Jefferson
Family Court’s order denying his motion to alter, amend, or vacate portions of the
court’s prior order entering findings of fact and conclusions of law in this divorce
action. After a careful review of the record, we affirm.
Senior Judge Michael Henry, sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 21.580.
1
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
William and Raven Jolee Kaiser (Raven) were married in November
2003. They had one child. In December 2006, an emergency protective order was
entered ordering William to stay away from the marital residence. A domestic
violence order was entered approximately one week later that directed William to
obtain domestic violence offender treatment. William filed for divorce that same
month.
Prior to their marriage, William owned a home on Downing Way in
Louisville. The family court found that William’s equity in the Downing Way
home on the date of his marriage to Raven was $31,558.28. After they were
married, William and Raven obtained a $25,000.00 line of credit mortgage on the
home. They subsequently refinanced the mortgage and received an additional
$21,000.00. The money from the line of credit and the mortgage were used to
improve a farmhouse that was owned by William’s parents and to buy a bull. The
family court found that, “[a]lthough the parties had been told they could live in the
house rent free in return for their investment, they never believed title would be
transferred to them.”
In the divorce proceedings, William contended that only $18,700.00
from the line of credit and $12,769.00 from the refinanced mortgage, i.e., a total of
$31,469.00, were used to improve the farmhouse. Thus, he alleged that the total
amount invested in the farmhouse was less than the equity that he had in the
Downing Way property before the parties were married and, accordingly, Raven
-2-
should not be awarded any money based on the money spent for improvements to
the farmhouse.
The family court awarded Raven $20,000.00 for her share of the
money spent improving William’s parents’ farmhouse after finding that, during
their marriage, Raven
became concerned about the significant debt the parties
were taking on to improve a property that neither of them
had a legal claim to, i.e. the farmhouse of [William’s]
parents. The [c]ourt [found] that, in response to these
concerns, [William] promised [Raven] that, should they
ever divorce, he would pay her $20,000.00 to reimburse
her for her unrealized investment in the property.
[Raven] relied on this promise and assumed additional
debt.
Therefore, the family court ordered William to pay Raven “$20,000.00 to satisfy
his obligation to her.”
Prior to trial, Raven alleged that she could not find her promise ring,
engagement ring, or wedding ring, and that William was the last person having
possession of them. At trial, she testified that William told her he bought the rings
for $10,000.00. However, William testified that he paid $4,000.00 for them, and
he submitted an affidavit from a jeweler from whom he purportedly bought the
rings, which stated that William purchased “an engagement ring and wedding band
set for the purchase amount of $4,000.00 plus tax. The total purchase price was
$4,240.00.” The jeweler’s affidavit continued, explaining that he had “reviewed
the store records and prepared a duplicate receipt for [William] as he was unable to
locate the original receipt.” The jeweler attested that he “determined the receipt
-3-
amount by reviewing [his] purchase records of the item and from [his] memory.
[The jeweler] purchased the items specifically for [William] to purchase as a
wedding set and [the jeweler] was able to locate the paperwork of [his] original
purchase of the items.” Furthermore, the jeweler attested that he had “done
business with [William] over the years and distinctly remember[ed the] purchase of
the engagement ring and the wedding band set.”
Regarding the rings, the family court noted William “testified that
[he] had the jewelry but ‘hid’ these rings on top of a kitchen cabinet so they would
be safe. [Raven] searched for the rings following the trial and provided an
affidavit stating she could not find them.” Thus, William “was the last person to
have the rings in his possession and, having taken the rings, it was his
responsibility to keep them safe.” Consequently, the family court ordered William
to pay Raven “the sum of $7,000.00 as reimbursement for her non-marital gift.”
William moved to alter, amend, or vacate the family court’s order,
arguing, inter alia, that the $20,000.00 judgment against him to reimburse Raven
for the money spent on his parents’ farmhouse was improperly based on Raven’s
testimony that William had promised to reimburse her that amount if they ever
divorced, when no such promise was made. Additionally, William contended that
the $20,000.00 judgment for amounts spent improving the farmhouse, and the
$7,000.00 judgment against him to reimburse Raven for the rings that he allegedly
last had in his possession were improper because Raven had not raised these claims
in her proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law before trial, although she
-4-
raised the issues at trial. William further argued that, concerning the finding that
William was responsible for the lost rings, the family court “failed to consider the
fact that Raven obtained an EPO against [him] in December and as a result he
immediately left the house and [had] not been back in the house since December 3,
2006 – days before [the] divorce petition was filed.” Thus, William asserted that
the rings had been in Raven’s “sole and exclusive possession.”2
The family court denied William’s motion, noting that the “$20,000
judgment awarded to [Raven] was based on an oral contract made by the parties
when they were happily married. The contract was not a separation agreement.
[Raven] relied on the contract in assuming additional debt. Accordingly, it does
not fail for lack of consideration.” Additionally, regarding the $7,000 judgment for
the rings, the family court stated it “did not err in finding that [William] was the
last person to have possession of [Raven’s] rings and had a duty to keep them safe.
[William] failed to produce any reliable proof to rebut [Raven’s] testimony
regarding the rings’ value.”
William now appeals, contending that: (1) the family court erred in
finding that he made a binding promise to reimburse Raven for his use of his
equity in the Downing Way property to improve his parents’ property; (2) the
family court clearly erred in charging him $7,000.00 for Raven’s lost rings; and (3)
the family court erred in awarding Raven the $20,000.00 and $7,000.00 judgments
on claims that she did not raise in her pre-trial submissions.
Raven alleged that William had possession of the rings before he was ordered to leave the
house.
2
-5-
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appeal, the family court’s “factual findings underpinning the
determination of whether an item is marital or nonmarital are entitled to deference
and, consequently, [are] reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.
Ultimately, classification is a question of law, which [is] reviewed de novo.”
Smith v. Smith, 235 S.W.3d 1, 6-7 (Ky. App. 2006). “[T]he trial court is
unquestionably in the best position to judge the weight and credibility of the
evidence.” Id. at 6. “[A] trial court has wide discretion in dividing marital
property; and we may not disturb the trial court’s rulings on property-division
issues unless the trial court has abused its discretion.” Id.
-6-
III. ANALYSIS
A. CLAIM THAT THERE WAS NO BINDING PROMISE TO
REIMBURSE RAVEN3
William first alleges that the family court erred in finding that he
made a binding promise to reimburse Raven for his use of his equity in the
Downing Way property to improve his parents’ farmhouse. He contends that he
should not have been ordered to pay Raven $20,000.00 because the farmhouse on
which they made improvements was owned by his parents and, thus, it was not a
marital asset. Furthermore, William asserts that the money the parties borrowed to
improve the farmhouse was borrowed against the equity William acquired in the
Downing Way property himself before the parties were married. Finally, William
argues that the alleged oral contract he made with Raven to reimburse her
$20,000.00, if they ever divorced, was barred by the statute of frauds.
As for William’s argument that the money borrowed was against the
equity that he, personally and individually, held in the Downing Way property,
both the line of credit and the refinanced mortgage were co-signed by Raven and,
thus, she became as equally indebted as William on those loans. Therefore,
William’s allegation that the money borrowed as a result of those loans, which was
used to repair the farmhouse, was his nonmarital property based on his equity in
the house, lacks merit.
William inexplicably spends a great deal of space in his brief arguing that the “oral promise
[was] not enforceable as a separation agreement as it was not in writing.” (William’s Br. at pp.
6-11). However, the family court explicitly found that “[t]he contract was not a separation
agreement.” We agree. Therefore, this argument lacks merit.
3
-7-
Regarding the improvements made to the farmhouse, the family court
found that, “[a]lthough the parties had been told they could live in the house rent
free in return for their investment, they never believed title would be transferred to
them. Neither party has any legal interest in the property.” Thus, because William
and Raven did not own the house, the family court concluded that “any change in
its fair market value is not an asset of the marriage and cannot be divided by [the
c]ourt.”
At trial, Raven testified William promised her that if they separated,
he would pay her $25,000.00. She attested that she would not have continued to
contribute money to the farmhouse improvement project if he had not made that
promise. During trial, William was asked by opposing counsel if it was true that
he told Raven he would pay her $25,000.00 if they ever divorced and did not move
into his parents’ farmhouse. William denied ever making such a promise.
The family court noted that Raven testified at trial that during their
marriage, she
became concerned about the significant debt the parties
were taking on to improve a property that neither of them
had a legal claim to, i.e. the farmhouse of [William’s]
parents. The [c]ourt [found] that, in response to these
concerns, [William] promised [Raven] that, should they
ever divorce, he would pay her $20,000.00 to reimburse
her for her unrealized investment in the property.
[Raven] relied on this promise and assumed additional
debt.
Therefore, William was ordered to pay Raven “$20,000.00 to satisfy his obligation
to her.”
-8-
In William’s motion to alter, amend, or vacate the $20,000.00
judgment against him, he contended that “[t]he only evidence of this so-called
‘promise’ was Raven’s testimony that [William] orally promised her during the
marriage that if they divorced he would pay her this sum of money. There is no
writing supporting or reflecting this so-called promise.” The family court, in its
order denying William’s motion to alter, amend, or vacate, stated as follows: “The
$20,000.00 judgment awarded to [Raven] was based on an oral contract made by
the parties when they were happily married. . . . [Raven] relied on the contract in
assuming additional debt. Accordingly, it does not fail for lack of consideration.”
(Emphasis added).
William contends on appeal that the alleged “oral contract” was
unenforceable because it violated the statute of frauds, because the contract was
not in writing, as he had alleged in his motion to alter, amend, or vacate.
Kentucky’s statute of frauds provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o action shall be
brought to charge any person: . . . Upon any promise to answer for the debt,
default, or misdoing of another.” KRS 371.010(4). However, there are exceptions
to this part of the statute of frauds:
It has often been held that where the consideration for the
agreement to pay the debt of another redounds to the
benefit of the promisor, the Statute of Frauds does not
apply as it would be inequitable and unfair to permit one
to receive and enjoy the benefits of a promise and then
evade his part of the obligation because the promise was
not in writing.
-9-
Barnett v. Stewart Lumber Co., 547 S.W.2d 788, 790 (Ky. App. 1977). Therefore,
the statute of frauds is inapplicable to the present case because the consideration
for the agreement benefited William. He cannot now evade his part of the
obligation when he induced Raven to continue paying money towards the
improvements on the farmhouse, and promised in return that if they ever divorced,
he would pay her $20,000.00. Thus, William’s statute of frauds claim lacks merit.
William alleges on appeal that “[t]here was no proof of the existence
of the alleged promise other than Raven’s testimony.” Even so, the family court
was in the best position to determine the weight and credibility of the evidence,
including the testimony presented, and we will not overturn such factual findings
unless they are clearly erroneous. See Smith, 235 S.W.3d at 6-7. Based on the
evidence presented, the family court would have been justified to order William to
pay $25,000.00 to Raven to satisfy his promise to her, as that was the amount that
Raven testified he promised her. Therefore, the family court did not err in
awarding the lesser amount of $20,000.00 to Raven based on William’s promise,
and Raven’s reliance on that promise, as the elements of promissory estoppel were
satisfied. See Rivermont Inn, Inc. v. Bass Hotels Resorts, Inc., 113 S.W.3d 636,
642 (Ky. App. 2003).
B. CLAIM REGARDING THE LOST RINGS
William next contends that the family court clearly erred in charging
him $7,000.00 for Raven’s lost engagement, wedding, and promise rings. Raven
testified at trial that William told her he paid $10,000.00 for the rings. William
-10-
testified that he paid $4,000.00. Additionally, William obtained an affidavit from
the jeweler who sold him the engagement and wedding rings, attesting that the
store’s records showed that the total purchase price for the two items was
$4,240.00, even though William’s original receipt could not be located.
The affidavit and duplicate receipt prepared by the jeweler concerned
the alleged purchase price for the engagement and wedding rings, but did not
mention the promise ring. No tangible evidence was presented concerning the
value of the lost promise ring, which William last had in his possession. However,
Raven testified that William told her that all three rings cost a total of $10,000.00,
and William testified that the rings cost $4,000.00. Yet, considering that the
jeweler attested that just two of the rings cost $4,240.00, i.e., more than William
attested all three rings cost, we cannot say that the family court erred in finding
that all three rings were worth $7,000.00.
Furthermore, because William was the last person who saw the rings
or had them in his possession, the family court did not abuse its discretion when it
found that William had taken the rings and that it was William’s responsibility to
keep the rings safe. Consequently, the family court did not err when it ordered
William to pay Raven $7,000.00 for her lost rings.
C. CLAIM REGARDING PRE-TRIAL SUBMISSIONS
Finally, William alleges that the family court erred in awarding Raven
the $20,000.00 and $7,000.00 judgments on claims that she purportedly did not
raise in her pre-trial submissions. However, at the close of trial, Raven’s attorney
-11-
asked to be permitted to file amended proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law to conform to the evidence that was presented at trial. William’s attorney did
not object at that time and, in fact, the court permitted both parties to file amended
proposed findings of fact, as well as responses to the opposing party’s amended
proposed findings, as requested by William’s attorney.
Both parties subsequently filed amended proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and William’s response to Raven’s proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law included the submission of additional evidence concerning
the value of the rings, i.e., the jewelry store owner’s affidavit and duplicate receipt.
As previously explained, the family court’s findings of fact conformed to the
evidence presented. Because both parties wanted, and were granted, permission to
file amended proposed findings of fact concerning the evidence produced at trial,
and William was given permission to subsequently produce his own evidence
concerning the value of the rings, the family court did not err in considering
Raven’s claims.
D. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the order of the Jefferson Family Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
-12-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Mary Janice Lintner
Louisville, Kentucky
Paul J. Hershberg
Louisville, Kentucky
Louis P. Winner
Louisville, Kentucky
-13-
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.