Kentucky Court of Appeals Opinions Released November 6, 2026

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, with the family law cases first. Keep in mind that an unpublished opinion is not binding authority; under RAP 41 it may be cited only for consideration when no published opinion adequately addresses the issue.

Which Kentucky family law opinions came down today?

Gibson v. Gibson, No. 2025-CA-1493-MR (Laurel Family Court) | Vacated and Remanded | Unpublished

The parents divorced in 2019 with joint custody, and the mother was the primary residential parent because the father lived in another county. After the father moved to London, he asked for equal timesharing, and the family court granted it on the reasoning that KRS 403.270 presumes equal parenting time and neither parent rebutted the presumption. The Court of Appeals vacated. Under Layman v. Bohanon, 599 S.W.3d 423 (Ky. 2020), the equal parenting time presumption in KRS 403.270 and KRS 403.340 does not apply to a motion to modify timesharing, which is decided under KRS 403.320(3) on the child’s best interests alone. The family court may still order more time for the father, or even equal time, but it must decide the motion without the presumption.

West v. Harbin, No. 2025-CA-1613-ME (Warren Family Court) | Reversed and Remanded | Unpublished

A restaurant employee obtained a stalking IPO against a customer who was caught up in a family feud and came into the restaurant several times with her own children. The Court reversed because the record held no explicit or implicit threat intended to place the petitioner in reasonable fear of sexual contact, physical injury, or death, which KRS 508.150 required for petitions filed before July 15, 2026. The customer never spoke to the petitioner, and a passing reference to guns was never tied to any threat. The family court must dismiss the petition. The panel also excused a missing preservation statement in the appellant’s brief, but warned counsel not to expect continued leniency.

Hornbuckle v. Leto, No. 2026-CA-0732-ME (Fayette Family Court) | Reversed and Vacated | Unpublished

The petitioner proved two events: a text with no threatening language sent months earlier, and a physical attack at her workplace in February 2026. The family court treated the attack as an explicit threat and entered a three year IPO. The Court of Appeals agreed the attack could count, but held that stalking requires a course of conduct of at least two qualifying acts under KRS 508.130(2), and the earlier text did not qualify. The petitioner also testified that she was not physically afraid of the respondent. The Court vacated the IPO, while noting it did not condone the attack.

Shields v. Robinson, No. 2026-CA-0069-ME (Boone Family Court) | Affirmed | Unpublished

After a breakup, the respondent kept calling, texting, and emailing after he was blocked, came to the petitioner’s home uninvited, and one morning followed her down Ky. Route 16 and screamed at her through his car window. The Court affirmed a three year DVO. Repeated, escalating contact supported an implicit threat for stalking purposes, and the road confrontation supported a finding that the petitioner feared imminent physical injury, much like the clenched fists and yelling in Hohman v. Dery, 371 S.W.3d 780 (Ky. App. 2012). A missing express finding of substantial mental distress was harmless on this record.

Joseph v. Joseph, No. 2026-CA-0735-ME (Anderson Family Court) | Affirmed | Unpublished

A DVO entered in 2014 after a violent assault had been extended in 2017, 2020, and 2023, and the family court extended it again in 2026. The respondent argued the whole chain of orders was void because he never got notice of the 2017 extension hearing. The Court held that was a due process issue, not a jurisdictional one, and that he waived it by waiting nine years. Extending a DVO does not require new acts of violence; the court may weigh the severity of the original abuse and the petitioner’s continuing fear under Cottrell v. Cottrell, 571 S.W.3d 590 (Ky. App. 2019).

Hensley v. Hensley, No. 2026-CA-0116-MR (Jefferson Family Court) | Affirmed | Unpublished

Permanent maintenance of $5,330 a month was reduced by agreed order in 2019 to $2,000, and that order said maintenance would end only on death, remarriage, or cohabitation. When the husband moved to terminate in 2025, the family court cut maintenance to $1,000 instead. The Court affirmed. Modification depends on changed circumstances so substantial and continuing that the existing terms are unconscionable under KRS 403.250(1), not on a fresh review of the initial award factors, and the parties’ agreement limited the events that could end maintenance altogether.

Hill v. Tye, No. 2025-CA-1457-MR (Fayette Family Court) | Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded | Unpublished

A grandmother has had sole custody of her grandson since a 2019 North Carolina order. The mother asked for more visitation and moved to hold the grandmother in contempt. The Court affirmed the denial of more visitation under KRS 403.320(3), given two friend of the court reports and the mother’s incomplete follow through on recommended assessments. It also affirmed the decision not to hold the grandmother in contempt for name calling. But the family court wrongly found that the mother had no right to talk directly with the child’s medical providers, because a March 2023 order gave her that right, so the Court remanded that contempt issue.

D.R.B. v. D.C.B., No. 2026-CA-0292-ME (Rockcastle Family Court) | Affirmed | Unpublished

The child’s maternal grandparents, who had custody since a 2023 dependency case, adopted him without the mother’s consent. The family court found grounds under KRS 199.502(1)(e) and (g) by clear and convincing evidence and concluded that the mother’s recent progress on work and housing was too new to show lasting stability. Applying the same standard of review used in termination cases, the Court of Appeals deferred to the family court’s detailed findings and credibility determinations and affirmed. Bowman Legal represented the mother in this appeal.

K.P. v. Hon. Abigail E. Voelker, No. 2026-CA-1143-OA (Campbell Circuit Court) | Order Denying Emergency Relief

In a dependency case that the Court had already stayed, the petitioner asked again for an order changing custody and visitation. The Court denied the request because the family court never gave her party status, so her visitation claims were not yet properly before an appellate court. The writ petition itself will go to a three judge panel.

Lindsey v. Hon. Lori N. Goodwin, No. 2026-CA-0210-OA (Jefferson Family Court) | Order Denying Writ

A father in a custody and DVO dispute sought a writ to stay all proceedings, force recusal, and move the case to Hart County. The Court denied the writ because his three pending direct appeals give him an adequate remedy.

Which four 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 four, because published opinions bind every Kentucky trial court.

Hargens v. Roof, No. 2026-CA-0242-MR (Jefferson Circuit Court) | Dismissed | Published

School officials appealed the summary denial of their motion to dismiss on immunity grounds. The Court dismissed the appeal because the order never said whether the trial court actually ruled on immunity, so there was no appealable denial of immunity. The lesson reaches beyond school cases: if you need an immediately appealable ruling, ask the trial court for findings under CR 52.02 before you file the notice of appeal.

Hoak v. Left Back Properties, LLC, No. 2026-CA-0102-MR (Jefferson Circuit Court) | Affirmed | Published

A landlord was not liable for a dog bite on leased property. Its minimal contact with the premises did not make it a statutory owner of the dog under KRS 258.095, and there was no evidence it knew the dog existed, let alone that it was dangerous.

Perez-Hernandez v. Commonwealth, No. 2024-CA-1461-MR (Logan Circuit Court) | Affirmed | Published

A social worker’s testimony improperly bolstered a child’s credibility in a sexual abuse trial, but because the error was not preserved and other evidence was strong, it was not palpable error.

Gaddie v. Commonwealth, No. 2025-CA-0313-MR (Hardin Circuit Court) | Affirmed | Published

The Court affirmed drug trafficking convictions and held that CashApp deposits traceable to drug sales may be forfeited under KRS 218A.410(1)(j).

What other civil opinions did the Kentucky Court of Appeals release?

Hamid v. Hamid, No. 2025-CA-1492-MR (Jefferson Circuit Court) | Affirmed as Modified | Unpublished

A father subject to DVOs that bar him from the family home sued in circuit court to evict his adult sons from it. The Court agreed the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, because the suit was either a forcible detainer that belongs in district court or an attempt to get around the family court’s DVO. The family court can change the residence terms of a DVO on a proper showing. The dismissal was changed to one without prejudice.

Parking Authority of River City v. Chauvin, Nos. 2025-CA-0363-MR and 2025-CA-0425-MR (Jefferson Circuit Court) | Reversed and Remanded | Unpublished

The Court reversed a $1.7 million class verdict over parking citations because the class offered no proof that PARC’s alleged statutory noncompliance caused its injury.

Carroll v. Marshall, No. 2025-CA-1414-MR (Shelby Circuit Court) | Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part | Unpublished

An umpire’s defamation claim against a school athletic director goes back to the trial court, which confused official and qualified immunity.

Caldwell v. Taylor, No. 2025-CA-0964-MR (Oldham Circuit Court) | Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part | Unpublished

In a wrongful death case arising from an inmate’s death in a restraint device, the Court sent breach and causation questions to a jury.

Robey v. Miller, No. 2025-CA-0857-MR (Fayette Circuit Court) | Affirmed | Unpublished

A lawyer who knew of another lawyer’s alleged misappropriation owed no duty to warn that lawyer’s other clients.

Montgomery v. Fraternal Order of Eagles Aerie No. 4168, Inc., No. 2025-CA-0923-MR (Daviess Circuit Court) | Affirmed | Unpublished

Summary judgment against a bartender’s discrimination and related claims was affirmed.

Blevins v. Floyd County Board of Education, No. 2026-CA-0088-MR (Floyd Circuit Court) | Affirmed | Unpublished

Defendants whose immunity went unchallenged did not have to submit to discovery in a school fall case.

Moss v. Robey, No. 2026-CA-0040-MR (Oldham Circuit Court) | Affirmed | Unpublished

An inmate’s claims were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Which criminal and postconviction opinions did the Kentucky Court of Appeals decide?

Besides the two published criminal opinions above, the Court decided four criminal and postconviction appeals, affirming three outright and sending one back for a hearing.

• Smith v. Commonwealth, No. 2025-CA-0852-MR (Henry). Affirmed in part, reversed in part. The trial court must hold a hearing on whether counsel failed to pass along a plea offer.
• Lloyd v. Commonwealth, Nos. 2025-CA-0091-MR and 2025-CA-0175-MR (Daviess). Affirmed. A vagueness challenge to the statute in the indictment was not a proper RCr 11.42 claim, and the guilty plea waived the factual defenses.
• Bowling v. Commonwealth, No. 2025-CA-1079-MR (Jackson). Affirmed. Probation was properly revoked for unpaid restitution.
• Doom v. Commonwealth, No. 2025-CA-1278-MR (Livingston). Affirmed. A CR 60.02 motion attacking guilty pleas failed.

What orders did the Court enter?

• University of Kentucky v. Kamineni, No. 2026-CA-0950-I. Interlocutory relief granted. A trial court cannot bar a hospital from reporting peer review results that federal law requires it to report.
• B.G. v. Commonwealth, No. 2026-CA-1332-MR. Emergency relief granted, staying sex offender registration for a committed defendant whose only suitable care facility would otherwise be off limits.
• National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Wells, No. 2026-CA-1430-I. Emergency relief denied; the eligibility injunction stays in place for now.
• Wilson v. Commonwealth, No. 2026-CA-1241-MR. Motion for release from a 90 day contempt sentence denied.
• Rebennack v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company, No. 2025-CA-0667-MR. Dismissed on joint motion, with a pointed warning that a brief deliberately omitting record citations and preservation statements will draw sanctions next time.
• Porter v. Hon. Melissa M. Murphy, No. 2026-CA-0660-OA. Dismissed; a writ against a district judge must be filed in circuit court first.
• Alburg v. Czirr, Price v. Seven Hills Rod & Gun Club, Inc., and Prestige Home Solutions LLC v. Greene. Dismissed on motion.
• We summarized the K.P. and Lindsey orders 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 releases opinions on Fridays at 10:00 a.m. through its published minutes, which list every opinion and order released that week.

Does the equal parenting time presumption apply when a parent asks to change timesharing?

No. The presumption in KRS 403.270 and KRS 403.340 applies to initial custody decisions and custody modifications. A motion that asks only to change timesharing is decided under KRS 403.320 on the child’s best interests, without any presumption, as Gibson v. Gibson applied this week.

What does a petitioner have to prove to get an IPO for stalking in Kentucky?

For petitions filed before July 15, 2026, the petitioner had to prove at least two acts directed at her that seriously alarmed, annoyed, intimidated, or harassed her, served no legitimate purpose, and would cause a reasonable person substantial mental distress, plus an explicit or implicit threat that put her in reasonable fear of sexual contact, physical injury, or death. A 2026 amendment changed the statutory definitions for later petitions.

Can a Kentucky DVO be extended if there has been no new violence?

Yes. KRS 403.740(4) does not require new acts of domestic violence. The court may consider the nature and severity of the original abuse and the petitioner’s continuing fear, as the Court confirmed in Joseph v. Joseph.

Can maintenance be reduced even if it cannot be terminated?

Yes. If an agreement says maintenance is modifiable but ends only on certain events, the court may reduce it on a showing of changed circumstances that make the current terms unconscionable, while still honoring the limits on termination, as in Hensley v. Hensley.

Need help with a Kentucky family law appeal?

We round up Kentucky family law opinions every Friday. In the meantime, you can read our October 30 roundup. If you believe a Kentucky family court got your case wrong, act quickly, because appeal deadlines are short and strictly enforced. You can learn more about Kentucky family law appeals at Bowman Legal or call (502) 861-7414.