Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.170 (2026)

Marriage -- Irretrievable breakdown

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) If both of the parties by petition or otherwise have stated under oath or affirmation that the marriage is irretrievably broken, or one of the parties has so stated and the other has not denied it, the court, after hearing, shall make a finding whether the marriage is irretrievably broken. No decree shall be entered until the parties have lived apart for 60 days. Living apart shall include living under the same roof without sexual cohabitation. The court may order a conciliation conference as a part of the hearing. (2) If one of the parties has denied under oath or affirmation that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including the circumstances that gave rise to filing the petition and the prospect of reconciliation, and shall: (a) Make a finding whether the marriage is irretrievably broken; or (b) Continue the matter for further hearing not fewer than 30 nor more than 60 days later, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be reached on the court's calendar, and may suggest to the parties that they seek counseling. The court, at the request of either party shall, or on its own motion may, order a conciliation conference. At the adjourned hearing the court shall make a finding whether the marriage is irretrievably broken. (3) A finding of irretrievable breakdown is a determination that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. Effective: June 17, 1978 History: Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 236, sec. 2, effective June 17, 1978. -- Created 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 182, sec. 7.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1973–1993 · leading case: Putnam v. Fanning, 495 S.W.2d 175 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Putnam v. Fanning, 495 S.W.2d 175 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “140, and in so doing can it find “that the conciliation provisions of KRS 403.170 do not apply” without having granted a party’s motion, supported by an affidavit to the effect that the marriage is not irretrievably broken, for a conciliation conference? Our answer to both of…”

Laffosse v. Laffosse, 564 S.W.2d 220 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “170 states, “This section is not intended to allow divorce by agreement of the parties but makes the determination of whether the marriage is irretrievably broken a judicial function after hearing and upon the evidence.” The Court of Appeals in Smith v.”

Goldman v. Eichenholz, 851 S.W.2d 463 (Ky. 1993). · cites it 2× “Appellant contended that the trial court’s failure to grant a reconciliation conference was error contrary to both the language of KRS 403.170, and the purpose and policy set forth in the preamble to the Kentucky No-fault Divorce Act.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.170(2)(b) — 1 case

Goldman v. Eichenholz, 851 S.W.2d 463 (Ky. 1993). “Appellant contended that the trial court’s failure to grant a reconciliation conference was error contrary to both the language of KRS 403.170, and the purpose and policy set forth in the preamble to the Kentucky No-fault Divorce Act.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.