Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.250
Modification or termination of provisions for maintenance and property
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
disposition. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (6) of KRS 403.180, the provisions of any decree respecting maintenance may be modified only upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unconscionable. The provisions as to property disposition may not be revoked or modified, unless the court finds the existence of conditions that justify the reopening of a judgment under the laws of this state. (2) Unless otherwise agreed in writing or expressly provided in the decree, the obligation to pay future maintenance is terminated upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance. Effective: July 13, 1990 History: Amended 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 418, sec. 5, effective July 13, 1990. -- Created 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 182, sec. 15.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 114
cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Messer v. Messer
Messer v. Messer (2004)
“On May 14, 1999, Edward filed a motion to terminate his maintenance obligation pursuant to KRS 403.250 which provides, inter alia: (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (6) of KRS 403.”
Block v. Block (2007)
“Block appeals the Jefferson Family Court’s denial of his motion to modify spousal maintenance in accordance with KRS 403.250. After a careful review of the record, we vacate the order of the family court and remand.”
Board v. Board (1985)
“The issue is whether the trial court erred in crediting social security payments against child support and the underlying issue is whether a motion for modification pursuant to KRS 403.250 must be made prior to a crediting of social security against child support payments.”
Combs v. Combs (1990)
“KRS 403.250 provides in relevant part as follows: (1) .”
Dame v. Dame (1982)
“As this court evaluates the facts, there is only one issue, which is: "Does the circuit court have jurisdiction to change an award of maintenance in a fixed and determinate amount to be paid either in a lump sum or for a specific amount to be paid over a definite period of…”
Wheeler v. Wheeler (2004)
“180 and KRS 403.250; thus Monette’s reliance on Williams is misplaced.”
Clark v. Clark (1980)
“Virginia timely moved the Fayette Circuit Court to revive the divorce action, substituting the adminis-tratrix for Graydon, and further moved that the maintenance payments to her be continued with past due payments also being paid out of the estate. The circuit court determined…”
Whicker v. Whicker (1986)
“In order to enforce such agreements, a court must find that modification might reasonably have been granted, had a proper motion to modify been brought before the court pursuant to KRS 403.250 at the time such oral modification was originally agreed to by the parties.”
Daunhauer v. Daunhauer (2009)
“In this case, KRS 403.250 entitles Bruce to have his maintenance obligation modified or terminated if he demonstrates changed circumstances that render his obligation unconscionable.”
McGowan v. McGowan (1983)
“The formula adopted by the court effectively allows appellee to receive an automatic increase in child support without filing a motion pursuant to KRS 403.250(1). We are of the opinion that KRS 403.”
Bishir v. Bishir (1985)
“’ Such an award is not subject to modification under the provisions of KRS 403.250. See Dame v. Dame, Ky., 628 S.”
Clark v. Clark (1990)
“Such decrees are not modifiable as set out in KRS 403.250(1) and interpreted by Dame v.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.250(1) — 60 cases
Combs v. Combs (1990)
“KRS 403.250 provides in relevant part as follows: (1) .”
Dame v. Dame (1982)
“As this court evaluates the facts, there is only one issue, which is: "Does the circuit court have jurisdiction to change an award of maintenance in a fixed and determinate amount to be paid either in a lump sum or for a specific amount to be paid over a definite period of…”
Board v. Board (1985)
“The issue is whether the trial court erred in crediting social security payments against child support and the underlying issue is whether a motion for modification pursuant to KRS 403.250 must be made prior to a crediting of social security against child support payments.”
McGowan v. McGowan (1983)
“The formula adopted by the court effectively allows appellee to receive an automatic increase in child support without filing a motion pursuant to KRS 403.250(1). We are of the opinion that KRS 403.”
Jaburg v. Jaburg (2018)
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.250(2) — 16 cases
Messer v. Messer (2004)
“On May 14, 1999, Edward filed a motion to terminate his maintenance obligation pursuant to KRS 403.250 which provides, inter alia: (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (6) of KRS 403.”
Combs v. Combs (1990)
“KRS 403.250 provides in relevant part as follows: (1) .”
Clark v. Clark (1990)
“Such decrees are not modifiable as set out in KRS 403.250(1) and interpreted by Dame v.”
Clark v. Clark (1980)
“Virginia timely moved the Fayette Circuit Court to revive the divorce action, substituting the adminis-tratrix for Graydon, and further moved that the maintenance payments to her be continued with past due payments also being paid out of the estate. The circuit court determined…”
Weldon v. Weldon (1997)
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.250(3) — 7 cases
Herring v. Moore (1977)
Graham v. Graham (1980)
Leathers v. Ratliff (1996)
Hamilton v. Hamilton (1980)
Bustin v. Bustin (1998)
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.