Legal Opinion

Privett v. Clendenin

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided August 23, 2001No. 2000-SC-0127-DGPublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

JOHNSTONE, Justice.

Dr. George W. Privett, Jr., and Holly Clendenin were married for almost thirteen years and were blessed with two children. While still married, Privett and Clendenin established two accounts under the Kentucky Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA) for the benefit of their children. Clendenin was named custodian of the accounts. After their marriage was dissolved, Privett petitioned the Jessamine Circuit Court for relief against Clendenin under the UTMA. The trial court ruled in Privett’s favor. The Court of Appeals reversed on grounds that the Jessamine…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MottleySupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  2. Duncan v. O'NANCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1970
  3. Buder v. Sartore ex rel. BuderSupreme Court of Colorado · 1989
  4. Commonwealth Health Corp. v. CroslinKentucky Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Kampschaefer v. Commonwealth ex rel. KampschaeferCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1988

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Parts Depot, Inc. v. BeiswengerKentucky Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Peter v. GibsonKentucky Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Karem v. BryantSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2012
  4. Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. J.T.G.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2009
  5. Commonwealth v. GrovesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2006

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API