Background
Bo Fang and Tina George married in March 2018 and separated in May 2021. They have one minor child, born in March 2019. Tina filed for dissolution of the marriage in May 2022, and the Jefferson Family Court entered a limited decree dissolving the marriage in April 2024, reserving property division and custody issues. Under a temporary mediated agreement reached in October 2022, the parties shared joint legal custody, with the child residing primarily with Tina and Bo exercising parenting time on Sundays. Prior to that agreement, Bo had only been permitted supervised visitation at Tina’s home.
Following a final hearing on January 16, 2024, the family court entered its final order on April 17, 2025. The court divided the marital estate — including the marital residence, vehicles, and various financial accounts — and determined that to equalize the division, Bo owed Tina $443.96. On custody, the court awarded Tina sole custody, noting that Bo’s parenting time had been suspended after the hearing and that he had relocated out of Kentucky. The court declined to set a parenting schedule but left open the possibility of Bo returning to court to establish one upon providing information about his current living and employment situation.
Bo, appearing pro se, timely appealed. He argued the family court incorrectly valued and divided marital assets — including by ignoring his alleged non-marital claims to certain accounts and a traded-in vehicle, and by failing to account for assets he claimed Tina had concealed — and that the court erred in awarding sole custody to Tina.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals struck Bo’s brief and dismissed the appeal for substantial noncompliance with the Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP). The court identified multiple deficiencies: Bo’s brief lacked a statement of points and authorities as required by RAP 32(A)(2); his statement of the case — consisting of just four sentences — failed to provide the factual and procedural summary with record references required by RAP 32(A)(3); and his arguments contained no citations to the record, no citation of legal authority, and no preservation statements, all required by RAP 32(A)(4). The court emphasized that pro se litigants are not exempt from appellate rules under Kentucky precedent.
Exercising its discretion, the court chose to strike the brief and dismiss rather than overlook the deficiencies or limit review to manifest injustice. It nonetheless observed that even under a manifest-injustice review, Bo would not prevail. On custody, Bo failed to allege an abuse of discretion and merely asked the appellate court to reweigh evidence — a role that belongs to the trial court. On property division, Bo failed to provide sufficient evidence of tracing to establish non-marital interests, and his claim that a retirement account was counted twice was not preserved by a proper motion below.
Key Takeaways
- Kentucky appellate courts will strike a brief and dismiss an appeal when the appellant fails to substantially comply with RAP requirements, including the statement of points and authorities, a factual statement with record references, and argument sections with record citations, legal authority, and preservation statements.
- Pro se litigants in Kentucky are held to the same appellate procedural standards as attorneys; lay status does not excuse noncompliance with the RAP.
- Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment for the trial court’s credibility determinations in family law cases; a party challenging a custody order must affirmatively allege and demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
- A party claiming a non-marital interest in property must provide sufficient tracing evidence at the trial level; failure to do so will not be remedied on appeal.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision is a pointed reminder that appellate procedure is not merely technical formality. Kentucky’s Court of Appeals has consistently enforced briefing rules against pro se litigants, and this case reinforces that a party who files a deficient brief — regardless of the potential merit of the underlying claims — risks having the appeal dismissed outright. For family law practitioners, it highlights the importance of advising clients who choose to self-represent about the significant procedural hurdles they face on appeal.
The court’s alternative manifest-injustice analysis also signals that the outcome on the merits would have been the same. An appellant in a Kentucky family court case must do more than ask an appellate court to view facts differently; without a showing that the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous or reflected an abuse of discretion, the family court’s determinations on custody and asset division will stand.