Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Maclean v. Middleton

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided January 3, 2014No. Nos. 2011-CA-000267-MR, 2011-CA-000268-MR, 2011-CA-001076-MR, 2011-CA-001160-MRPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTaylor, Judge

Respectfully, I concur in part and dissent in part. I concur with the majority opinion on those issues raised on appeal which were heard by the Family Court Judge and not delegated to the Master Commissioner. However, I must respectfully dissent to the majority’s decision on all issues raised on appeal that look to the recommendation of the Master Commissioner to the Family Court Judge — specifically the determination of appellee’s non-marital interest in various assets, including the distributions from “the Daughter’s Trust” and the nonmarital interest in the marital residence in conjunction…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc.Kentucky Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Bingham v. BinghamKentucky Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Abernathy v. NicholsonKentucky Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Stewart v. City of CorbinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1943
  5. Stanley v. C & R Asphalt, LLCCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API