Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Brandy filed a probate petition seeking to be appointed the personal representative of her late husband’s (Scott) estate. The trial court denied her petition based on a premarital agreement that waived Brandy’s interests in her husband’s separate property. The court named his parents as co-administrators of the estate. The court of appeal held Brandy was entitled to introduce extrinsic evidence in support of her argument that she and her late husband mistakenly believed the premarital agreement would apply only in the event of divorce, rather than upon death. On remand, the trial court found that the mistake was a unilateral mistake on Brandy’s part and that she was not entitled to rescission. The court expressly found “there was insufficient evidence that Scott encouraged or fostered Brandy’s mistaken belief.”The court of appeal affirmed. Because Brandy failed to read the agreement and meet with her attorney to discuss it before signing it, she bore the risk of her mistake and is not entitled to rescission. View "Estate of Eskra" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to open the judgment in this marital dissolution case on the basis of fraud, holding that the appellate court properly affirmed the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to open.Following a trial, the dissolution court issued a decision dissolving the parties' marriage and issuing certain financial orders. Defendant later filed this motion claiming that Plaintiff had committed fraud by denying the existence of a sexual relationship with another man during the course of the marriage and by testifying that Defendant had physically assaulted her. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of Defendant's motion to open. View "Conroy v. Idlibi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order denying Father's motion to discharge his child support arrearage, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion.After the parents of K.S. separated Father was ordered to pay mother child support. Ten years later, K.S. was removed from Mother's home due to a child abuse and neglect petition and placed in Father's custody. When Father took custody the circuit court suspended Father's child support obligation. Father, however, owed almost $25,000 in past unpaid child support and interest. Father filed a motion to discharge the child support arrearage, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly found that it was prohibited from retroactively modifying or canceling child support awards except in limited circumstances not present in this case. View "In re K.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the family court denying the motion of the Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, ex rel. Child Support Enforcement's (Cabinet) to set aside an agreed judgment regarding the paternity of a child born out of wedlock, holding that the underlying judgment was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The Cabinet brought this action to set aside the agreed judgment in this case, arguing that the judgment was void and entered due to fraud and should be side aside under Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02. The family court denied the motion as untimely, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the family court acted outside its statutory authority in adjudicating non-paternity without a corollary determination of paternity as to an identified father; and (2) because the judgment was void, rule 60.02(e) mandated that the judgment be set aside. View "Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services ex rel. Child Support Enforcement v. B.N.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that three dependency-neglect-abuse (DNA) petitions filed by the guardian ad litem (GAL) of three children against the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) should have been dismissed.The GAL brought this action raising concerns regarding the conduct of the CHFS with respect to three children committed to its temporary custody. The CHFS filed a motion to dismiss the petitions, arguing that the neglect petitions did not state a viable cause of action because the CHFS was entitled to governmental immunity. The family court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the General Assembly waived the CHFS's right to governmental immunity in DNA matters. The Supreme Court vacated the lower courts' decisions and remanded for dismissal of the GAL's DNA petitions, holding (1) the GAL's allegations should have been addressed by a motion in the context of the existing DNA cases rather than in separate actions; and (2) in any event, the petitions were moot on their face. View "Commonwealth v. Baker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court declining Father's request for a contempt citation after Mother moved the parties' child to another school in a district town without obtaining a modification of the marital dissolution decree, holding that the district court erred.The decree in this case, a settlement agreement, and a parenting plan granted joint legal and physical custody of the parties' child to Mother and Father. When Mother moved with the child, Father requested a contempt citation. The district court declined the request, and the Supreme Court reversed. On remand, the district court found no violation or willfulness. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in its assessment of Mother's actions and in its interpretation of the decree. View "Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court dismissing Petitioner's verified miscellaneous petition for declaratory judgment, holding that there was no error.This action stemmed from the Department of Children, Youth, and Families' (DCYF) investigation into the maltreatment of Petitioner's biological grandchild, ML. DCYF placed ML with a nonrelative foster family and then terminated Petitioner's son's parental rights to ML. The foster family subsequently adopted ML. Petitioner brought this action seeking a declaration that DCYF violated its statutory obligations by not considering him as a fit and willing relative for ML's placement. The trial justice dismissed the petition after finding that Petitioner lacked standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner did not have standing to seek adjudication of his rights to ML when he filed his petition. View "Lacera v. Department of Children, Youth & Families" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought to prevent the enforcement of an order of the circuit court that granted the motion filed by Respondents, the maternal grandparents of R.L., for the temporary placement of R.L. in their home, holding that Petitioners, R.L.'s foster parents, established that they were entitled to the writ.After the parental rights of R.L.'s parents were terminated R.L. was placed with Petitioners. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion for temporary placement of R.L., finding that his best interests would be served by achieving permanency through adoption by them. Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court exceeded its legitimate powers and committed clear error as a matter of law by ordering R.L. to be placed with Respondents. View "State ex rel., D.B. v. Honorable Thomas A. Bedell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the family court denying Father's motion seeking to modify a parenting plan for his daughter, E.M., due to substantial changes in circumstances and awarding attorney fees to Mother, holding that the family court's finding of no substantial change in circumstances was clearly erroneous.When E.M. was two years old, Father and Mother signed an agreed parenting plan. Three years later, Mother filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, alleging that the circumstances had substantially changed due to his job change, Mother's joining the workforce and E.M.'s enrollment in kindergarten. The family court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the family court committed clear error when it found that there was no substantial change in circumstances. View "Jared M. v. Molly A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion to transfer custody of A.A. to her upon finding that the transfer would not be in A.A.'s best interest, holding that there was no error.A.A. was temporarily removed from a hotel room after her father was arrested for unlawful possession of firearms. Petitioner, A.A.'s paternal grandmother, declined to take custody of the A.A. and so the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources placed A.A. with Respondents, foster parents. After the proceedings began, Petitioner intervened and filed a motion to transfer custody of the child to her. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court appropriately exercised jurisdiction in this matter; and (2) Petitioner's remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "In re A.A." on Justia Law