Summary
The Kentucky Supreme Court held that post-decree motions to modify visitation or timesharing are actions tried upon the facts without a jury under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01. Family courts must make specific findings of fact, separate conclusions of law, and an appropriate judgment when deciding such motions. The court remanded the case because the trial court had provided only the conclusion that relocation was not in the child's best interest.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a post-decree motion to modify visitation or timesharing is an action tried upon the facts without a jury under CR 52.01, requiring specific findings of fact, separate conclusions of law, and an appropriate judgment.
- Whether an appellant may obtain appellate review and a remand for the absence of any factual findings despite not filing a request for findings under CR 52.04.
- Whether prior decisions holding or suggesting that specific findings were unnecessary on modification motions should continue to govern.
Holdings
- A post-decree motion seeking modification of visitation or timesharing is substantively an action to reopen and rehear part of a final order. When the court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the motion, it must make specific findings of fact, state separate conclusions of law, and enter an appropriate judgment under CR 52.01.
- CR 52.04 does not bar appellate review or a remand when the trial court made no factual findings at all, rather than making a good-faith effort that omitted only a particular essential finding.
- Hollon v. Hollon is overruled, and prior decisions including Burnett v. Burnett are overruled to the extent they conflict with the requirement that family courts make specific findings of fact and separate conclusions of law on evidentiary post-decree modification motions.
Key quotations
“As such, family courts must make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and must enter the appropriate order of judgment when hearing modification motions.” (at 457)
“CR 52.01 requires that the judge engage in at least a good faith effort at fact-finding and that the found facts be included in a written order.” (at 458)
“CR 52.04 is simply not involved here because the trial court made no factual findings rather than good-faith but incomplete findings.” (at 459)
Factual background
The parties divorced in 2002 and had one child. In 2007, they obtained a joint-custody order providing for equal timesharing as agreed by the parties. In 2009, Anderson sought to relocate with the child to Paducah, which would reduce Johnson's timesharing; after an evidentiary hearing, the family court denied the motion without making specific factual findings or separate conclusions of law.
Procedural history
After the parties' divorce and a subsequent joint-custody order providing for equal timesharing, Anderson moved to modify timesharing so she could relocate with the child to Paducah, Kentucky. Following an evidentiary hearing, the family court denied the motion, stating only that relocation was not in the child's best interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that specific findings were unnecessary when the court denied a motion. The Supreme Court of Kentucky accepted review, held that the family court was required to make specific findings of fact and separate conclusions of law, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The Franklin Circuit Family Court must make specific findings of fact and separate conclusions of law concerning the timesharing and relocation request and then enter the appropriate judgment consistent with the opinion.