
21 Sep Sept 12 Round Up: Personal Jurisdiction Rides Again
There is one case of note – involving personal jurisdiction of all things. The others are small fry cases. Enjoy.
Lance Richard Motter v. Victoria Cruse Motter, 2024-CA-1369
Every law student remembers the endless Civil Procedure 1 discussions about personal jurisdiction. Most of us thought those lessons faded away once we got to family court. Not so fast. The Kentucky Court of Appeals just reminded us in Motter v. Motter that jurisdiction still matters when it comes to dividing marital property.
Here’s the short of it: Lance and Victoria Motter lived in Kentucky before separating in 2022. Lance moved back to Pennsylvania. Victoria waited more than a year before filing for divorce in Marshall County Family Court before Judge Stephanie Perlow. She got a default judgment, including a property division, without Lance’s participation. When Lance later showed up to contest the ruling, he argued Kentucky courts lacked personal jurisdiction under KRS 454.220—the matrimonial long-arm statute.
The trial court disagreed, leaning on the general long-arm statute (KRS 454.210) and saying property division wasn’t a “distributive award” under KRS 454.220. Chief Judge Thompson, writing for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, reversed. The Court held that dividing marital property is a distributive award and that the one-year jurisdictional limit in KRS 454.220 applies. Because Victoria filed after that deadline, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to divide marital property.
The Court of Appeals went further: even if KRS 454.220 didn’t control, the trial court’s reliance on the wrong version of KRS 454.210 would have been error, since under the old statute the court only had jurisdiction over claims tied to real property—not bank accounts, annuities, or boats.
Takeaway for practitioners and judges
KRS 454.220 is alive and well. It specifically governs matrimonial cases and imposes a one-year deadline for asserting jurisdiction over out-of-state spouses. General long-arm theories won’t save a late filing. Divorce decrees may still dissolve marriages, but courts can’t divide marital property if they miss the jurisdictional window.
Civil Procedure 1 isn’t dead or useless after all—at least not in Kentucky family law.
To be published. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-001369.PDF
Benjamin G. Dusing v. Jill Bakker, 2024-CA-0119 and cross-appeal
The soap opera of the Dusings rolls on. This week’s installment features yet another round of contempt findings, Rule 11 sanctions, and, unsurprisingly, Ben Dusing losing—again.
The backdrop: Ben Dusing and Jill Bakker have been locked in bitter litigation for years over their daughter. Back in 2021, the Kenton County Family Court limited their communications to the Our Family Wizard app after finding Dusing had abused Bakker. Even with strict word limits, Dusing couldn’t resist editorializing.
Fast forward: Judge Thomas Rauf (after inheriting the case from two other judges who had recused) found Dusing in contempt—again—for violating the OFW restrictions, for failing to reimburse daycare expenses in a timely manner, and for flooding the court with filings that crossed the line under Civil Rule 11. The sanctions included attorney’s fees, more time in jail, and a “purge plan” requiring Dusing to attend therapy with a provider experienced in treating narcissistic personality disorder.
On appeal, Dusing argued everything from due process violations to improper judicial succession to nitpicking citation errors. The Court of Appeals (Judge Lambert writing, joined by Judges Caldwell and Moynahan) wasn’t having it. They affirmed across the board, emphasizing that civil contempt can include jail time, purge conditions were within the trial court’s discretion, and CR 11 is meant to curb exactly the kind of scorched-earth litigation tactics Dusing has become known for.
The Court also pointedly noted Dusing’s repeated citation errors—some to the wrong cases entirely—and his habit of misrepresenting precedent. The panel could have sanctioned him for that, but “leniently elected not to do so.”
Takeaway
The Court of Appeals continues to back up Kenton County Family Court’s efforts to rein in Dusing’s conduct. For practitioners, the opinion underscores two points: (1) civil contempt is flexible enough to include incarceration when lesser sanctions have failed, and (2) CR 11 is not an empty threat—especially for repeat litigants who flood the system with baseless filings.
A free Practice Pointer:
When structuring contempt sanctions, trial courts should:
- Make clear findings of willfulness.
- Provide a purge mechanism, even if unconventional (therapy, classes, repayment schedules).
- Ensure purge conditions track the record — here, therapy was tied to prior expert testimony and earlier court orders.
That linkage helped the Court of Appeals affirm the purge plan despite Dusing’s protests. Creative conditions are permissible so long as they are grounded in the case history and designed to coerce compliance rather than punish.
Unpublished. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-000119.PDF
Candice Zavatsky v. Eric Kieslich, 2024-CA-0104
In an interstate custody dispute, Meade County Circuit Court denied a mother’s motion to transfer the case to Tennessee. The Court of Appeal affirmed in a brief decision. The Opinion, authored by Judge Combs, conceded that the mother had good reasons; indeed, she provided a “persuasive list of factors” to the Family Court, but alas, it was not enough. A read if you are a UCCJEA junkie, I guess. Otherwise, not much here.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-000104.PDF
Stephen Douglas Keen v. Theresa Lorraine Keen, 2024-CA-0088
Steve, a self-represented husband, seeks another bite at the same apple. The Court of Appeals is not pleased and tells him no. And don’t come back.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-000088.PDF
Bradley Alan Sears v. Heather Bryant, 2024-CA-1488
Bradley Alan Sears v. Danielle Guminski, 2024-CA-1490
In a decision that doesn’t really impact anyone other than the Parties, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed Interpersonal Protective Orders from McCracken County Family Court. Judge Easton agreed that there was sufficient proof – including the Appellant’s having a “kill list” that included the local Family Court Judge. An easy case.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-001488.PDF
D.C. v. CHFS, C.C.V., and J.V., 2024-CA-0066, and associated case
A routine TPR affirmed. Nothing to see here.
Unreported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2024-CA-000066.PDF
Criminal Tally
This week’s criminal tally:
Cops: 1
Robbers: 0
With one tie in a suppression case.
Thanks for reading! Click here to read the previous Round Up.