Summary
The Kentucky Supreme Court denied Stanley Chesley's motion for interlocutory relief under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 65.09. The Court held that a circuit court order directing Chesley to transfer his beneficial interest in an Ohio trust to satisfy an existing judgment was a post-judgment enforcement order, not a temporary or other injunction subject to interlocutory review. The Court therefore declined to address whether Kentucky law authorized compelling the transfer of property held in a foreign jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Boone Circuit Court's June 23, 2015 post-judgment order requiring Chesley to transfer his beneficial interest in an Ohio trust was a temporary or other injunction subject to interlocutory review under CR 65.07 and CR 65.09.
- Whether Chesley was entitled to relief under CR 65.09 from the Court of Appeals' denial of interlocutory relief.
Holdings
- A post-judgment order requiring a judgment debtor to transfer property to satisfy an unpaid judgment is not a temporary injunction when it does not preserve the status quo during the pendency of the action. Because the June 23, 2015 order was not an injunction, it was not subject to review under CR 65.07 or CR 65.09.
- Chesley was not entitled to CR 65.09 relief because his motion was procedurally improper; the order he challenged was not an injunction.
Key quotations
“A temporary injunction generally functions to hold the status quo until the merits of an action can be decided.” (opinion at 9)
“Instead of being an injunction, the June 23, 2015, order was a post-judgment order in furtherance of Respondents' efforts to collect on the outstanding judgment against Chesley.” (opinion at 10)
Factual background
Chesley and other attorneys participated in the settlement of Kentucky fen-phen litigation, after which clients alleged that the attorneys concealed the total settlement amount and improperly distributed settlement funds. The Boone Circuit Court entered a final judgment holding Chesley jointly and severally liable for approximately $42 million on breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims. Because Chesley did not post a supersedeas bond, the circuit court later ordered him to direct the transfer of his beneficial interest in an Ohio trust to help satisfy the judgment.
Procedural history
The Boone Circuit Court entered summary judgment against Chesley on breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims and held him jointly and severally liable for approximately $42 million. The court later ordered Chesley to direct transfer of his beneficial interest in an Ohio trust toward satisfaction of the judgment. After Chesley sought interlocutory relief under CR 65.07, the Court of Appeals denied his motion, and the Supreme Court granted review under CR 65.09.