Roy N. Vance

This case involved a dispute over whether an ex-wife's relationship with a male friend constituted "cohabitation" under a divorce settlement agreement, which would end the ex-husband's maintenance payments. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed that the relationship did not qualify as cohabitation, as the couple maintained separate residences, paid their own expenses, and did not assume marital rights and duties like living together as husband and wife. The court interpreted the term based on its dictionary definition and the parties' intent in the agreement, which linked termination to living in the same house rather than just a sexual relationship. It distinguished this from a prior case about modifying maintenance due to changed circumstances.

family lawproperty

The case arose after an employee of Dix & Associates Pipeline Contractors was killed at work by a vehicle driven by an employee of Bardstown Mills; the employee's estate received workers' compensation benefits from Dix and later settled its tort claim against Bardstown Mills for $250,000. Bardstown Mills then pursued a third-party claim for contribution against Dix, while Dix sought to recover the compensation benefits it had paid under KRS 342.700. The trial court instructed the jury on comparative fault, which apportioned 95 percent to Bardstown Mills and 5 percent to Dix, but ultimately entered offsetting judgments that awarded Bardstown Mills 50 percent contribution (capped at the amount of benefits paid) and allowed Dix to recoup its payments. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, holding that prior precedent required equal division of contribution liability between the parties and that the settlement structure prevented further adjustment of the subrogation rights.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerned whether a deceased husband's deposits into joint bank accounts with his children could prevent his widow from claiming her statutory dower interest in one-half of his personal property under Kentucky law. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the widow was entitled to her dower share in the funds, reversing the Court of Appeals. The court reasoned that a spouse's dower rights cannot be defeated by lifetime transfers intended to reduce the estate, and that KRS 391.315 regarding joint accounts does not impliedly repeal or override the dower statute, as the husband lacked the legal power to dispose of the property in a manner that defeated those rights.

family lawproperty

In Stratton v. Parker, a personal injury case arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sued multiple defendants, one of whom settled before trial while the other proceeded to trial. The jury apportioned 25% fault to the non-settling defendant, 75% to the plaintiff, and 0% to the settling defendant, leading the trial court to enter judgment for 25% of damages against the non-settling defendant and allow credit for the settlement amount. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, holding that under KRS 454.040 and precedents like Orr v. Coleman, liability is several according to the jury's apportionment of causation, so no credit is due when the settling party is found to have zero percent fault.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned a pedestrian who was injured after falling on a defective, snow-covered sidewalk abutting a store in Newport, Kentucky, and who sued the property owner and its tenant after failing to provide the city with the required 90-day notice under KRS 411.110. The trial court granted summary judgment to the owner and tenant, ruling that a city ordinance requiring abutting landowners to maintain sidewalks did not create liability to injured pedestrians, and denied the plaintiff's attempt to add the city as a defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ordinance issue, but the Kentucky Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's ruling, holding that the ordinance did not impose such liability. The court's reasoning relied on longstanding precedent that these ordinances shift primary responsibility to the landowner but do not alter the city's underlying duty or create a private right of action for damages against abutting owners.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved appellants who were convicted of second-degree burglary, first-degree robbery, and assault after forcing entry into an elderly couple's home, beating one victim with a pistol, and stealing $8,000. The court affirmed the burglary and robbery convictions and consecutive sentences but reversed the assault convictions. It held that the assault merged into the first-degree robbery because the indictment and jury instructions relied on the same elements of physical force and injury to elevate the theft to first-degree robbery under K.R.S. 515.020(1)(a), rather than mere possession of a weapon. The court found the Blockburger test inapplicable here due to the specific charging and instructions used.

criminal law