Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The circuit court granted Appellants' motion for summary judgment in a partition action for the sale of jointly owned real estate, having found that the statute of frauds prevented enforcement of an alleged oral "buy/sell" agreement between the parties. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Appellants, as the party attempting to force the sale, were impermissibly using the statute of frauds as a "sword" and not a "shield" and because "no action" was brought by Appellees that might trigger the application of the statute. The court therefore remanded the matter for a determination as to whether the oral buy/sell agreement existed and its effect on the disposition of the property at issue. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that because there was no signed writing in this case, and because there was no evidence that the agreement was not reduced to writing because of fraud at the time of omission or evidence that the application of the statute of fraud would result in Appellants being unjustly enriched, summary judgment was proper. View "Smith v. Williams" on Justia Law

Appellant Travis Smith was convicted of first-degree burglary by complicity, first-degree robbery by complicity, and second-degree assault by complicity and was sentenced to a total of twenty-two years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction but remanded for further proceedings on the question of the imposition of court costs, holding (1) Appellant's claims of instructional error were not properly preserved, but upon palpable error review the jury was adequately instructed upon the necessary elements of accomplice culpability, and therefore the jury instructions did not amount to palpable error; and (2) the trial court erred by imposing court costs against Appellant without determining if he was a "poor person." View "Smith v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant Brian McGuire appealed from a judgment of the circuit court convicting him of first-degree manslaughter and unlawful possession of a weapon on school property and sentencing him to twenty years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not deny Appellant's constitutional right to present a defense based on his assertion that the public school system interfered with his efforts to interview witnesses employed by the school system, as the effect of any troublesome conduct of school officials was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) did not err by permitting the Commonwealth to present evidence concerning Appellant's stressful personal life during its case in chief; (3) erred by admitting victim impact evidence during the penalty phase of the trial, but no manifest injustice occurred as a result of the improperly admitted evidence; (4) did not err in the penalty phase by disallowing mitigation testimony from Appellant's father; and (5) erred by permitting the jury to rehear a witness's testimony outside of Appellant's presence, but the error was not palpable. View "McGuire v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

This matter involved the ability to recover attorney's fees based on a contingency fee arrangement when an attorney withdraws from representation of the client for what the lawyer believes is a valid cause. The district court found Attorney was not entitled to recover his attorney's fees based on a quantum meruit claim but awarded him funds to cover calculated expenses from his representation of Appellee in a personal injury case with a contingency fee contract. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a disagreement with a client over whether to accept a settlement offer is not good and sufficient cause for an attorney to withdraw with expectation of a quantum meruit fee. View "Lofton v. Fairmont Specialty Ins. Managers, Inc." on Justia Law

The underlying case here was a divorce action between Appellant John Lee and Jill Stanley. Judge Stephen George of the family court heard the divorce proceedings. Because of Appellant's pattern of litigation, Stanley filed a motion to require Appellant to post a bond prior to any future motions being called. The court agreed and issued an order imposing a bond. Appellant then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition asking the court of appeals (1) to order Judge George to disqualify himself because he had not acted impartially and (2) to disqualify Stanley's counsel and the guardian ad litem because they had engaged in fraudulent activity and nefarious conduct. The court of appeals denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a writ was not an available remedy for Appellant's claims that the trial court was biased against him and that the court erred in refusing to disqualify the guardian ad litem and opposing counsel; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to a writ regarding the bond order because Appellant did not clearly state the relief he was requesting and the grounds for that relief with sufficient specificity. View "Lee v. Family Court (George)" on Justia Law

Appellant Kenneth Hudson was convicted of murder as an accomplice by the circuit court. Appellant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred (1) in declining to instruct the jury on theories of accomplice liability for first-degree manslaughter, second-degree manslaughter, and reckless homicide, and (2) by admitting irrelevant evidence concerning a shooting in Tennessee and Appellant's gang activity, asserting that the prejudicial effect of such evidence substantially outweighed its probative value. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Appellant's requested instructions on the lesser included homicide instructions; and (2) the evidence of the Tennessee shooting and Appellant's gang activity was properly admitted. View "Hudson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

This case required the Supreme Court to determine whether Appellee, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) had "good cause" for failing to timely release a satisfied real estate lien it held on Gary and Sharon Hall's property. The circuit court concluded that the Halls were not entitled to statutory damages because, although MERS filed a release referencing the wrong mortgage, the Halls provided insufficient notice to MERS of the release's actual deficiency. Thus, the court found MERS had "good cause" not to file a new release once it checked and found it had already filed one. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that MERS satisfied the "good cause" requirement under these particular circumstances. View "Hall v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant entered a conditional plea to first-degree possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia, reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress the evidence found during the search of her apartment. The court of appeals affirmed the conditional plea of guilty. Appellant appealed, complaining that the court of appeals' analysis incorrectly found a reasonable suspicion to justify the protective sweep of her apartment following Appellant's consent to officers entering her apartment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the law, as is stated in this case, is that consent by the owner for the police to enter his home does not extend to the entire house, even for a protective sweep; and (2) the motion to suppress should have been granted because the protective sweep was illegal and the contraband discovered was the result of this unlawful invasion as fruit of the poisonous tree. View "Guzman v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Elery was convicted of murder, tampering with physical evidence, and violating a protective order and sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of probation or parole. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding, inter alia, (1) the jury was improperly allowed to hear evidence of an uncharged crime, but the error was harmless; (2) any error in the trial court's instructions to the jury was not prejudicial to Appellant; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking a juror for cause; (4) certain victim impact testimony was properly admitted; and (5) the exclusion of a portable breathalyzer test was error, but the error was harmless. View "Elery v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether a district court acted outside the scope of its jurisdiction when it issued an order requiring a guardian to provide all financial records related to a court-ordered accounting and to make restitution to a guardianship account. The circuit court denied a petition for writ of prohibition prohibiting the district judge from enforcing his orders. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court and remanded the case back for entry of a writ of prohibition, opining that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the charge was one of mismanagement of funds and beyond the scope of the court's powers. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appellate court's order requiring the circuit court to enter a writ of prohibition was improper, as the district court is granted exclusive jurisdiction to manage and settle guardianship accounts and was acting soundly within its jurisdiction in this case. View "Dist. Court (Karem) v. Bryant" on Justia Law