holding that transfer of insurance agency by father to his son was not a gift because son's agreement to continue father’s employment with agency was consideration for transfer
How later courts described this case
- holding that transfer of insurance agency by father to his son was not a gift because son's agreement to continue father’s employment with agency was consideration for transfer
- “According to KRS 403.190(3), [a]ll property acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before a decree of legal separation is presumed to be marital property.This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing proof that the property was acquired by, amongst other means, 'gift, bequest, devise, or descent.’ ”
- “This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing proof that the property was acquired by, amongst other means, 'gift, bequest, devise, or descent.’ ” (emphasis added)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by Neidlinger v. Neidlinger, 2001 Ky. LEXIS 141 (2001)
836 S.W.2d 439, 445 (Ky. App. 1992), overruled on other grounds by Neidlinger v. Neidlinger, 52 S.W.3d 513
The opinion
STUMBO, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with this opinion with the exception of the decision regarding maintenance. Given the apparently luxurious lifestyle of the parties during the marriage, the duration of the marriage, the non-liquid nature of the assets awarded the wife, and the husband’s financial resources, I believe the award to be too low. I would increase the maintenance award to the amount Agnes will receive when Tom’s pensions become payable, that is $1,800.90 per month, with Tom to receive credit against his monthly obligation as each pension does become payable.