Summary
The Kentucky Supreme Court held that a family court did not lose subject-matter jurisdiction to issue a domestic violence order merely because the hearing occurred more than fourteen days after the initial emergency protective order. It interpreted the 2009 version of KRS 403.740(4) to permit reissuance of an emergency protective order when necessary to protect the petitioner and concluded that the procedure used here did not violate the statute. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for review of the appellee’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the family court lost subject matter jurisdiction to issue a domestic violence order because the full hearing was not held within fourteen days after issuance of the original emergency protective order.
- Whether the 2009 version of KRS 403.740(4) permitted the family court to reissue an emergency protective order in successive fourteen-day periods when the court determined reissuance was necessary to protect the petitioner and the hearing was postponed.
- Whether Telek was entitled to appellate review of his unresolved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the domestic violence order.
Holdings
- A family court does not lose subject matter jurisdiction over a domestic violence proceeding merely because it allegedly fails to comply with a statutory procedural time limit governing the issuance of a domestic violence order.
- The family court's repeated reissuance of the EPO in successive periods not exceeding fourteen days, while postponing the DVO hearing, did not violate the version of KRS 403.740(4) in effect in 2009.
- Because the Supreme Court reversed the ground on which the Court of Appeals had disposed of the case, the case had to be remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider Telek's unresolved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Key quotations
“A court, once vested with subject matter jurisdiction over a case, does not suddenly lose subject matter jurisdiction by misconstruing or erroneously overlooking a statute or rule governing the litigation.” (467)
“Once a court has acquired subject matter and personal jurisdiction, challenges to its subsequent rulings and judgment are questions incident to the exercise of jurisdiction rather than to the existence of jurisdiction.” (467)
“Like virtually every other kind of hearing conducted in our courts, the full hearing on a DVO may be rescheduled as the circumstances reasonably require.” (469)
Factual background
Daugherty filed a petition for a domestic violence order on August 18, 2009, and the family court issued an emergency protective order through August 26, the date originally set for the full hearing. At Telek's counsel's request, the hearing was postponed so the child's guardian ad litem could participate and the matter could be consolidated with a related custody proceeding. The family court repeatedly reissued the EPO in fourteen-day periods and ultimately held the DVO hearing on October 21, 2009, finding that domestic violence had occurred and entering a three-year DVO.
Procedural history
The Kenton Circuit Court family court issued an emergency protective order and later a three-year domestic violence order against Telek. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the DVO hearing occurred more than fourteen days after the original EPO. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for review of Telek's unresolved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Kentucky Court of Appeals for consideration of Telek's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting entry of the DVO and for proceedings consistent with the opinion.