damages analysis in Kentucky

2026We further held: It is well established that “[n]otwithstanding that a default judgment has been entered, the law still requires a legal basis to support a damages claim[.]” Deskins v. Estep, 314 S.W.3d 300, 304 (Ky. App. 2010).

2024“Notwithstanding that a default judgment has been entered, the law still requires a legal basis to support a damages claim. . . .” Deskins v. Estep, 314 S.W.3d 300, 304 (Ky. App. 2010).

2025A damages claim is liquidated if it is “of such a nature that the amount is capable of ascertainment by mere computation, can be established with reasonable certainty, can be ascertained in accordance with fixed rules of evidence and known standards of value, or can be determined by reference to well-established market values.” 3D Enterprises, 174 S.W.3d at 450 (citation omitted).

2014A damages claim is liquidated if it is “of such a nature that the amount is capable of ascertainment by mere computation, can be established with reasonable certainty, can be ascertained in accordance with fixed rules of evidence and known standards of value, or can be determined by reference to well-established market values.” 3D Enterprises, 174 S.W.3d at 450 (citation omitted).

2025Under CR 23.02(c), the Retirees were required to establish that “the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members[.]” The purpose of the predominance requirement is to test whether a proposed class is “sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Manning v. Liberty Tire Servs. of Ohio, L.L.C., 577 S.W.3d 102, 116 (Ky. App. 2019) (quoting Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 594 , 117 S. Ct. 2231, 2236 , 138 L.

2025Under CR 23.02(c), the Retirees were required to establish that “the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members[.]” The purpose of the predominance requirement is to test whether a proposed class is “sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Manning v. Liberty Tire Servs. of Ohio, L.L.C., 577 S.W.3d 102, 116 (Ky. App. 2019) (quoting Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 594 , 117 S. Ct. 2231, 2236 , 138 L.

2010See How *305 ard v. Fountain, 749 S.W.2d 690 (Ky.App.1988).

2010Essentially, in setting aside the judgment as to damages, the circuit court concomitantly relied upon the holding of Howard v. Fountain, 749 S.W.2d 690 (Ky.App.1988), and the fact the Dr. Hicks “assert[ed] that he received no notice of the hearing” on damages.

2024Dressler v. Barlow, 729 S.W.2d 464, 465 (Ky. App. 1987). -2- On September 30, 2020, Brown filed a motion to reschedule the damages hearing.

2022Cabinet, 429 S.W.3d 397, 414 (Ky. App. 2014) (quoting 3D Enterprises, 174 S.W.3d at 450 (citation omitted)).

2021Hyde’s failure to file a written motion requesting such default to be declared prior to the damages hearing is of no significance, nor does it provide a valid excuse for default by National Redevelopment.6 6 “CR 55.01, however, requires notice only when the party has made an appearance before the court.” Green Seed Co., Inc. v. Harrison Tobacco Storage Warehouse, Inc., 663 S.W.2d 755, 758 (Ky. App. 1984).

2017However, even if the damages analysis was not the same with respect to the tort claims, Cindy’s claims would fail because they are based on statements the Bank made as part of the garnishment proceedings Cindy instituted. 13 Thus, the statements at issue were made “preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as a part of a judicial proceeding” Rogers v. Luttrell, 144 S.W.3d 841, 843-44 (Ky. App. 2004) (quoting General Elec.