HAZEL P. COLE APPELLANT
EMMA JEAN VINCENT, BY HER ATTORNEY IN FACT, BARBARA JEAN SEABOLT APPELLEE
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM EDMONSON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE
TIMOTHY R. COLEMAN, JUDGE ACTION NO. 18-XX-00001
FOR APPELLANT: Matthew J. Baker Bowling Green, Kentucky
FOR APPELLEE: Bobby H. Richardson Glasgow, Kentucky
BEFORE: GOODWINE, SPALDING, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
forcible detainer action is before this Court on
discretionary review of the order of the Edmonson Circuit
Court affirming the Edmonson District Court's finding
Hazel P. Cole ("Cole") guilty of forcible detainer.
After careful review, we reverse and remand.
Jean Vincent ("Vincent") is the mother of three
children, including Cole. Vincent deeded the property at
issue to her three children and retained a life estate.
Vincent brought a forcible detainer action against Cole, who
kept cows on the property. The district court found Cole
guilty of forcible detainer, finding although there was no
landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, Cole had no
right to possession of the property. The circuit court
affirmed, holding "any possession by [Cole] of the
subject property would be permissive, and, once that
permission is withdrawn, such as it was in this case, subject
to a forcible detainer action by [Vincent]." R. at
then moved this Court for discretionary review, arguing the
district court's and circuit court's decisions were
erroneous because a landlord-tenant relationship is required
to maintain a writ of forcible detainer. This Court granted
discretionary review. The sole issue before us is whether the
district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
underlying action as the parties did not have a
landlord-tenant relationship. "We review determinations
on subject-matter jurisdiction de novo."
Basin Energy Co. v. Howard, 447 S.W.3d 179, 184 (Ky.
App. 2014) (citing Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc.
v. Coleman, 239 S.W.3d 49, 54 (Ky. 2007)).
argues the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over the case because the parties did not have a
landlord-tenant relationship. Vincent summarily argues such a
relationship is not required because Cole obtained possession
of the property without Vincent's consent.
383.200 defines forcible entry and forcible detainer as
(2) A forcible entry is:
(a) An entry without the consent of the person having the
(b)As to landlord, an entry upon the possession of his tenant
at will or by sufferance, whether with or without the
(3)A forcible detainer is:
(a) The refusal of a tenant to give possession to his
landlord after the expiration of his term; or of a tenant at
will or by sufferance to give possession to the ...