Neidlinger v. Neidlinger

I agree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings concerning attorney’s fees and debt assignment, and I therefore concur in the result reached by the majority. I cannot agree, however, with that portion of the majority opinion which holds that no pre*524sumptions exist regarding debts incurred during a marriage and which overrules Daniels v. Daniels1 and Underwood v. Underwood.2 I write separately concerning Part III (Assignment of Debt) because I believe existing Court of Appeals precedent correctly holds that KRS 403.190(3) creates a rebuttable…