Kentucky Court of Appeals Opinions Released October 30, 2026
Key takeaways. Five Kentucky family law opinions came down on Friday, October 30, 2026, among the 16 opinions the Kentucky Court of Appeals released that morning (Minutes Nos. 673 through 688). The Court also designated three opinions for publication and entered three orders. In Zhang v. Chen, the Court enforced a prenuptial agreement that a K-1 visa fiancée signed. Meanwhile, in Wilson v. Estate of Conkright, it held that a clerk’s error in issuing a marriage license does not, by itself, allow a court to void a marriage after one spouse has died. As always, each case name below links to the full opinion on the Kentucky Court of Justice website.
Every Friday at 10:00 a.m., the Kentucky Court of Appeals releases its new opinions through its published minutes. Below is everything that came down today, and as usual, the Kentucky family law opinions come first. Because the case name in each heading links to the full opinion, you can read the Court’s reasoning for yourself. However, keep in mind that an unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. Instead, RAP 41 allows a party to cite one for consideration only when no published opinion adequately addresses the issue.
Which Kentucky family law opinions came down today?
Five of today’s sixteen decisions arose from Kentucky family law appeals. Together, they cover a prenuptial agreement, a marriage license, a domestic violence order, a neglect finding, and an emergency writ in a dependency case.
Zhang v. Chen, No. 2025-CA-0126-MR (Madison Family Court) | Affirmed | Unpublished
The Court upheld a prenuptial agreement and the denial of maintenance. The wife, a citizen of China, came to Kentucky on a K-1 fiancée visa and signed the agreement eleven days after arriving. However, she had received it six months earlier, and she had received at least three warnings to have it translated. The Court therefore held that a contract binds the party who signs it. Likewise, conditioning a marriage on signing a prenup is not duress, because the law permits the agreement. Nor was the agreement unconscionable, since the financial gap between the parties was the same at divorce as when they married. Finally, the Court noted that the wife may still pursue the husband’s federal I-864 support obligation in a separate action.
Wilson v. Estate of Conkright, No. 2025-CA-0911-MR (Montgomery Circuit Court) | Vacated and Remanded | Unpublished
A man obtained a marriage license without the bride present while she was in the hospital under an emergency guardianship. The wedding took place in her hospital room, and she died two weeks later. The circuit court then voided the marriage because the clerk improperly issued the license. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the estate had standing. Even so, after a spouse’s death, KRS 403.120(2) permits a court to invalidate a marriage only for lack of capacity, force, duress, or fraud, and a licensing defect is not one of those grounds. As a result, the case returns to the circuit court for findings on capacity and duress. Judge Eckerle dissented and would have affirmed.
Gaddy v. Garrett, No. 2025-CA-0626-ME (Barren Family Court) | Affirmed | Unpublished
The Court affirmed a three year domestic violence order. First, service on the respondent in jail was proper, because the summons listed the hearing date and he had notice of every hearing. Second, KRS 403.740(1) allows a family court to protect any “other person specified by the court,” including the petitioner’s adult daughter. Third, the respondent’s online harassment, including posting nude photographs and personal information, followed earlier physical violence, and that history supported the finding that domestic violence occurred and may again occur. Finally, the Court pointed out that several cases cited in the pro se brief appeared to be fictional.
J.S. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, No. 2026-CA-0616-ME (Clark Family Court) | Affirmed | Unpublished
The Court affirmed a neglect adjudication against a father whose family had him involuntarily hospitalized under KRS Chapter 202A, which left the child without a caregiver. According to the Court, KRS Chapter 600 does not require expert testimony or medical records. Instead, lay testimony from the social worker and family members was sufficient. Furthermore, any error in admitting videos that predated the petition was harmless.
C.K. v. Hon. Casey Cheesman, No. 2026-CA-1320-OA (Grant Circuit Court) | Order Denying Emergency Relief
A mother in a dependency case renewed her request for emergency relief while her writ petition remains pending. The Court denied it, explaining that the disposition order will be final and appealable. Moreover, separation from a child, though serious, is not the kind of ruinous harm RAP 60(H) requires.
Which three opinions did the Kentucky Court of Appeals designate for publication?
None of today’s Kentucky family law opinions made the publication list. Even so, family law practitioners should note these three, because published opinions bind every Kentucky trial court.
O’Loughlin v. Dave’s Towing Service, Inc., Nos. 2025-CA-0782-MR and 2025-CA-0842-MR (Jefferson Circuit Court) | Vacated and Remanded | Published
In a class action over private towing in Louisville, the Court held that vehicle owners towed from private lots do not purchase services from the tow company. Consequently, the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act does not apply. Without that claim, the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, so the Court vacated the judgments and directed transfer to district court.
Huston v. Commonwealth, No. 2025-CA-1034-MR (Boone Circuit Court) | Affirmed | Published
Purchasers of bullion and currency cannot sue the Department of Revenue directly for sales tax refunds under the 2025 exemption. Instead, the retailer must request the refund on their behalf.
Lampton Securities Partnership, LLP v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, No. 2025-CA-1380-MR (Jefferson Circuit Court) | Affirmed | Published
A reverse condemnation claim over riverfront land that floodplain ordinances restrict was not ripe, because the owner never sought a variance from the Floodplain Board. Nevertheless, the owner may still bring a ripe takings claim in the future.
What other civil opinions did the Kentucky Court of Appeals release?
Greenview Hospital, Inc. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, No. 2024-CA-1418-MR (Franklin Circuit Court) | Reversed and Remanded | Unpublished
The Court reinstated the Cabinet’s denial of a certificate of need for a freestanding emergency department and urgent care center in Bowling Green. Specifically, it held that substantial evidence supported the Cabinet’s finding that the record rebutted the presumption of need.
Swofford v. Option Care Enterprises, Inc., No. 2025-CA-1080-MR (Kenton Circuit Court) | Affirmed | Unpublished
In a medical malpractice case, an infusion certified nurse could testify to the standard of care for placing an IV line. However, the nurse lacked the qualifications to testify on medical causation. Without a causation expert, summary judgment was proper.
Viterra USA Grain, LLC v. First United Bank and Trust Company, No. 2025-CA-1445-MR (Lyon Circuit Court) | Affirmed | Unpublished
A grain dealer sued a farmer’s secured lender for unjust enrichment over a check that the dealer’s own employee arranged. However, Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code displaced that claim.
Which criminal and postconviction opinions did the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirm?
The Court affirmed all six criminal and postconviction appeals. Although none of them are Kentucky family law opinions, the CR 60.02 rulings apply equally to motions to reopen a divorce decree or custody judgment.
- Majors v. Commonwealth, No. 2025-CA-0399-MR (Jefferson). Affirmed. A CR 60.02 motion seeking grand jury recordings eight years after a guilty plea came too late and was procedurally improper.
- Stone v. Commonwealth, No. 2025-CA-0467-MR (Kenton). Affirmed. The trial court properly denied RCr 11.42 relief without a hearing. The claimed Brady material was not material, and the record refuted the ineffective assistance claims.
- Pope v. Commonwealth, No. 2025-CA-0883-MR (Lincoln). Affirmed. A CR 60.02(f) motion based on a deputy’s later, unrelated federal conviction offered only impeachment evidence.
- Schuetz v. Commonwealth, No. 2025-CA-0992-MR (Boone). Affirmed. A conflict of interest theory that the defendant raised for the first time on appeal could not support an evidentiary hearing under RCr 11.42.
- Payne v. Commonwealth, No. 2025-CA-1624-MR (Daviess). Affirmed. CR 60.02 does not reach jury instruction and unanimity claims that the defendant could have raised on direct appeal or under RCr 11.42.
- Rodriguez-Montaner v. Commonwealth, No. 2026-CA-0193-MR (Jefferson). Affirmed. Because the court had already set aside and expunged the case, RCr 11.42 did not apply, and a second CR 60.02 motion raising immigration advice came too late.
What orders did the Court enter?
- Elder v. Administrative Office of the Courts, No. 2026-CA-0024-MR. Petition for rehearing denied.
- Johnson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 2026-CA-1235-MR. Motion for intermediate relief under RAP 21 denied. Financial harm is not irreparable injury, and only the trial court may approve a supersedeas bond. In addition, a notice of appeal filed while a timely CR 59.05 motion is pending is premature.
- We summarized the C.K. order with the family law cases above.
Frequently asked questions about Kentucky family law appeals
When does the Kentucky Court of Appeals release opinions?
The Court of Appeals releases its opinions on Fridays at 10:00 a.m. and lists them in that day’s minutes.
Can I cite an unpublished Kentucky Court of Appeals opinion?
Yes, but only for a limited purpose. Unpublished opinions, including unpublished Kentucky family law opinions, are not binding precedent. However, under RAP 41, you may cite one for consideration if no published opinion adequately addresses the issue.
Is a prenuptial agreement enforceable in Kentucky if one spouse did not read English?
It can be. In Zhang v. Chen, the spouse had the agreement for six months and heard repeatedly that she should have it translated. Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that the agreement bound her, because a person who cannot read a contract has a duty to have someone explain it before signing.
Can a marriage be voided after one spouse dies in Kentucky?
Only on limited grounds. Under KRS 403.120(2), after the death of a spouse, a court may declare a marriage invalid only for lack of capacity to consent, force, duress, or fraud involving the essentials of marriage. In Wilson v. Estate of Conkright, the Court held that an improperly issued marriage license is not one of those grounds.
Can a Kentucky domestic violence order protect an adult child?
Yes. In Gaddy v. Garrett, the Court held that KRS 403.740(1) allows a family court to restrain contact with any other person the court specifies. Moreover, nothing in the statute limits that protection to minors.
Need help with a Kentucky family law appeal?
We round up Kentucky family law opinions every Friday, and we will publish separate, in depth analyses of Zhang v. Chen and Wilson v. Estate of Conkright. In the meantime, you can read our October 2 roundup and our analysis of Dall v. Dall. If you believe a Kentucky family court got your case wrong, act quickly, because the deadline to appeal is generally 30 days from entry of the final judgment. Our guide to the appeals process explains each step. You can also learn more about Kentucky family law appeals at Bowman Legal or call (502) 861-7414.
One Comment