Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Giese v. Giese

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

September 1, 2017

TERRY ARTHUR GIESE APPELLANT
v.
ELIZABETH GIESE (HAMILTON) APPELLEE

         APPEAL FROM FLOYD FAMILY COURT HONORABLE DWIGHT S. MARSHALL, JUDGE NO. 11-CI-00932

          BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Diana L. Skaggs, Elizabeth M. Howell

          BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Gerald DeRossett

          BEFORE: KRAMER, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND JOHNSON, JUDGES.

          OPINION

          JOHNSON, JUDGE

          Terry Arthur Giese ("Terry") brings this appeal from the Floyd Family Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment, entered March 20, 2015, [1] denying his motion to modify support and maintenance obligations established in 2006 in dissolution proceedings initiated in a Tennessee court. After reviewing the record in conjunction with the applicable legal authorities, we REVERSE the judgment and REMAND to the Floyd Family Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

         BACKGROUND

         Terry and Elizabeth Giese (Hamilton) ("Elizabeth") divorced on December 27, 2006, following a 19-year marriage. The marriage and divorce occurred within the state of Tennessee. At the time of the divorce, the Tennessee court found that Terry was capable of earning $80, 000.00 per year and ordered "Alimony in Futuro" (hereinafter "spousal maintenance") at $1, 500.00 per month. "Alimony in futuro" is defined by the Tennessee legislature as "periodic alimony … a payment of support and maintenance on a long term basis or until death or remarriage of the recipient." Tennessee Code Annotated (Tenn. Code Ann.) § 36-5-121(f)(1)(2)(3).

         Terry domesticated the Tennessee judgment with the Floyd Circuit Court on September 6, 2011, as he and Elizabeth were now residents of Kentucky and continue to reside in this state to this day. Subsequently, Terry moved the Floyd Circuit Court to modify his Tennessee-ordered spousal maintenance obligation on November 1, 2012, based on allegations that Elizabeth had begun cohabitating with another individual and that Terry had suffered "a substantial and continuing reduction in his income".

         The Floyd Circuit Court held its motion in abeyance, citing ongoing litigation between the parties in Tennessee. Elizabeth then failed to appear at a scheduled hearing in front of the Tennessee court, which dismissed Elizabeth's perjury allegation against Terry, and determined that "any and all other matters (i.e. Child Support and Alimony) will be heard by the Courts of competent jurisdiction for the State of Kentucky since [Elizabeth], [Terry] and the parties' child (Ron), all reside in Kentucky and have for over one (1) year."

         The Floyd Circuit Court consequently overruled Terry's motion to modify his spousal maintenance, finding he had not shown grounds to modify it. Terry then appealed that ruling to us.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         "When the lower court is alleged to be acting outside its jurisdiction, as alleged in the present case, the proper standard is de novo review because jurisdiction is generally only a question of law." Karem v. Bryant, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.