RONALD HORVATH V. DARLYNN RENEE HORVATH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : APRIL 24, 2008
TO BE PUBLISHED
,*uyrrmr (~vurf a
2006-SC-000837-DG
RONALD HORVATH
V.
APPELLANT
ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
CASE NUMBER 2004-CA-002591
KENTON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 01-CI-001591
DARLYNN RENEE HORVATH
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE SCOTT
REVERSING
In this dissolution of marriage case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's decree of dissolution with respect to its finding that Appellant, Ronald
Horvath ("Ron"), owed a maintenance arrearage to Appellee, Darlynn Renee
Horvath ("Renee"). This Court granted discretionary review only on the issue of
whether monthly payments by Ron to Renee satisfied his temporary
maintenance obligation . In this regard, we disagree with the Court of Appeals
and the trial court that Ron was in arrears on maintenance, and therefore reverse
the Court of Appeals on this point only.'
1. Facts
' Thus this opinion shall not affect the opinion of the Court of Appeals on
other issues not directly addressed herein .
Ron and Renee were married on December 9, 1963 . They had been
married for 38 years, and had no minor children, when they separated on March
30, 2001 .2
On July 31, 2001, Renee filed her petition for dissolution of marriage . In
November 2002, while the dissolution action was pending, the parties orally
agreed that Ron would pay Renee "temporary maintenance" of $1,700 per
month .
At the time the dissolution petition was filed, Ron had been in business
with two partners, working as an independent sales representative . In February
2003, Ron sold his interest to the other partners . In exchange for his shares, he
was to receive $30,000 in twelve quarterly payments of $2,500 and a consulting
fee in the amount of $9,375 per month for three years .
The monthly consulting payments began in March 2003 . At that time, Ron
increased his payments to Renee up to a monthly amount equal to half the
monthly consulting fee (less tax withholding, her health insurance, and half the
cost of maintaining the parties' business rental property) . These increased
monthly payments to Renee varied from $2,921 .61 to $4,339 .50 .
Thereafter, on June 23, 2003, Renee moved for a temporary maintenance
order. On July 16, 2003, the trial court entered an order requiring Ron to pay
$1,700 per month temporary maintenance as per their previous agreement . Ron
however continued paying Renee the greater amount, equal to half of the
monthly consulting fee, less the amounts mentioned .
2 There was no decree of legal separation .
2
In its final decree of dissolution, the trial court characterized the sales
price, as well as the consulting fee for Ron's business interest, as a marital
assert and treated the payments to Renee, which began in March 2003, as a
division of marital property, rather than maintenance . Consequently, the trial
court concluded that Ron owed $1,700 per month in maintenance arrears from
the date of the order on July 16, 2003, to the date of judgment.
The Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed on this issue . The
majority however expressed reservations about the trial court's characterization
of the amount (which Ron owed to Renee) as a maintenance arrearage because
[a]t the times Ron made the payments to Renee, there was no
court order directing distribution of the proceeds from the sale of
the marital asset. The only relevant order in effect was the
temporary maintenance order, and Ron was making monthly
payments to Renee in excess of his maintenance obligation during
this period . The trial court's ruling in this respect seems to penalize
Ron based upon a later factual finding that he was unlikely to have
anticipated .
Horvath v. Horvath , 2006 WL 2382728, at *2 (Ky. App. 2006). Nonetheless, the
majority affirmed, finding that regardless of whether the money owed was
characterized as a maintenance arrearage or proceeds from the division of
marital property, Ron still owed Renee the same amount . This conclusion
ignores the issue of accrued interest on amounts found to be in arrearage.
The majority further stated that Ron would suffer no prejudice from the trial
court's classification of the amount owed as maintenance, as the trial court did
not find Ron in contempt for any such perceived failure to pay the maintenance
as ordered. Thus, the Court of Appeals determined that Ron had not
demonstrated that he was "significantly aggrieved" by the trial court's ruling, even
3 This amounted to $26,766 in arrears .
3
if the trial court did err in classifying the amount owed as a maintenance
arrearage and thus creating an arrearage .
On the other hand, according to the dissent, Ron was prejudiced by the
trial court's ruling because he has in effect had to pay maintenance twice, first
from the marital property while the dissolution proceeding was pending and then
from his separate property after the divorce .
11. Analysis
Ron argues that his monthly payments to Renee satisfied his temporary
maintenance obligation and urges us to set aside that portion of the decree of
dissolution (and the Court of Appeals' opinion) which require him to pay
arrearages to Renee of $1,700 per month, from the date of the=court order to the
date of judgment. This, of course, is the only issue upon which we granted
discretionary review .
During the pendency of an action for dissolution, the trial court may allow
a spouse temporary maintenance . KRS 403.160 . The purpose of temporary
maintenance is to preserve the status quo between the spouses while the
dissolution proceeding is pending. 27B C .J .S. Divorce ยง 503 . Temporary
maintenance, of course, terminates with the entry of the dissolution decree .
Here, upon motion by Renee, the trial court ordered Ron to pay $1,700
per month for temporary maintenance . Ron paid Renee at least $1,700 per
month from the date of the court order, July 16, 2003, until the decree of
dissolution entered on June 15, 2004. Undoubtedly, the payments were for
temporary maintenance as there is nothing in the record to document any
agreement that the increased payments were an agreed division of marital
assets and no one has argued they were gifts.
In determining whether Ron satisfied his temporary maintenance
obligation, it is immaterial in this instance ,4 that the source!of funds-for these
payments was marital property . In fact, Kentucky law, with few exceptions,
presumes that all property acquired subsequent to the marriage and before legal
separation is marital property . KRS 403.190(2)-(3) . Thus, there is no statutory
requirement that temporary maintenance be paid out of non-marital property, so
long as each party receives his or her full share of marital property on entry of
decree .
Here, in dividing the marital property, the trial court tried to equalize the
parties' assets and ruled that, under the circumstances of the marriage Renee
was entitled to half of the consulting fee, which was found to be marital property,
Thus, Ron used a portion ($1,700) of what was later determined to be Renee's
share of the monthly consulting payments to satisfy his temporary maintenance
obligation to her. Consequently, Ron must now pay Renee her full share of this
marital asset, less, of course, the amounts she has already received (or had
assigned to her in regards to this asset) over and above the amount of $1,700
per month she received as temporary maintenance.
Having found that Ron's payments to Renee to the extent of $1,700 per
month were for temporary maintenance, we conclude that the trial court
incorrectly found an arrearage in maintenance. There was none, as it had been
paid .
4 We have not been apprised that the payments were otherwise in
violation of any order.
5
111. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Court of Appeals on this issue
only and remand this matter back to the trial court for such further proceedings
as are appropriate to comply herewith and with the remainder of the Court of
Appeals' opinion, which we have not addressed in this opinion .
All sitting . All concur.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Robert W . Carran
1005 Madison Ave.
Covington, KY 41011-0352
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Stephen D. Wolnitzek
P.O. Box 352
Covington, KY 41012-0352
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.