Background
Quintin Webster and Ladochye Webster married in 1988 and had no children. Quintin moved elsewhere in the 1990s and never lived in the condominium the couple purchased in 1996 in Ladochye’s name. He admitted committing adultery during their separation but maintained that Ladochye knew of and permitted it as part of an open marriage. They never again resided together before Ladochye died intestate in November 2022.
Louis Cook and Ariel Curtis Cook challenged Quintin’s right to share in Ladochye’s property and estate under KRS 392.090(2). The Jefferson Circuit Court granted summary judgment in Quintin’s favor, reasoning that the statute did not bar his inheritance because the spouses had maintained a marital relationship and had never sought to dissolve their marriage. The Cooks appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that KRS 392.090(2) required Quintin to forfeit all right and interest in Ladochye’s property and estate. The undisputed evidence established that he voluntarily left her and lived in adultery. His assertion that their separate living arrangement was mutually chosen did not change the fact that he voluntarily left, and his admitted course of adultery satisfied the statute.
The court also held that Quintin did not satisfy the statute’s exception for spouses who afterward “become reconciled and live together as husband and wife.” Even assuming some reconciliation occurred after his adultery ended, the statutory word “and” imposed a separate requirement that the spouses live together. Because Quintin and Ladochye never again shared a residence, he could not avoid forfeiture by claiming they “lived together apart.” The court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for the Cooks.
Key Takeaways
- A spouse who voluntarily leaves the other spouse and lives in adultery forfeits all rights and interests in the other spouse’s property and estate under KRS 392.090(2).
- Avoiding forfeiture requires both reconciliation and living together as husband and wife; reconciliation alone is insufficient.
- Courts may not rewrite the statute to treat spouses who maintain a relationship while residing separately as living together.
Why It Matters
The decision applies KRS 392.090(2) according to its literal terms despite modern living arrangements and assertions of an open marriage. For Kentucky probate practitioners, it confirms that an estranged spouse’s inheritance rights may turn on evidence of voluntary departure, an ongoing course of adultery, and actual resumption of cohabitation.
The ruling also establishes that continued legal marriage, personal support, or reconciliation without a shared residence does not by itself restore inheritance rights forfeited under the statute.