noting that when a party files a motion for additional findings, the trial court first determines whether its findings are sufficient and “the question -6- on appeal is whether the omitted finding involves a matter that is essential to the trial court’s judgment”
How later courts described this case
- noting that when a party files a motion for additional findings, the trial court first determines whether its findings are sufficient and “the question -6- on appeal is whether the omitted finding involves a matter that is essential to the trial court’s judgment”
- explaining an exception exists to allow the appeal of a judgment of dissolution when it is void
- “[N]o particular formula has ever been held as the method for establishing maintenance.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
THOMPSON, Judge,
concurring:
Respectfully, I concur with the opinion of the majority. However, I must state that Steven Age’s appeal from the denial of a CR 60.02 motion to set aside a decree is invalid and should be summarily dismissed. KRS 22A.020(3) states: “Notwithstanding any other provision in this section, there shall be no review by appeal or by writ of certiorari from that portion of a final judgment, order or decree of a Circuit Court dissolving a marriage.”
As stated by our Supreme Court in the case of Clements v. Harris, 89 S.W.3d 403, 404 (Ky.2002), “[gjenerally, a decree of dissolution of marriage is not subject to review before an appellate court of the Commonwealth.” The Supreme Court further stated that “for well over a century, appellate courts of the Commonwealth have consistently held that a judgment granting a dissolution of marriage is not appealable or subject to appellate jurisdiction.” Id. This decree of dissolution of marriage cannot be set aside by virtue of a CR 60.02 motion as the logic of our statutory and common law is well reasoned.
If a decree of dissolution of marriage were subject to appeal or to be set aside at a future date by the stroke of a pen of a judge, it could create illegitimate children who were previously legitimate children of a marriage after the decree. For those reasons, I believe Mr. Age’s motion to set aside is invalid on its face and the appeal on this issue is frivolous.