Background
Mary Holden, now Carrigan, and Fred Holden entered into a property settlement agreement when ending their approximately 47-year marriage. The agreement provided that they would continue owning their Louisville farm jointly, that Fred would have its use and enjoyment to raise crops “for at least the next two (2) years,” and that “after which the property will be listed for sale.” It also restricted either party from disposing of an interest without the other’s written consent and required them to share taxes and insurance for succeeding years.
After the parties’ son moved out of the farm residence in January 2024, Mary asked Fred either to buy her interest or to list the property. Fred offered $125,000 for her share, which she declined, and he then refused to list the farm. The family court ruled that the agreement unambiguously allowed Fred to keep using the property as long as he continued farming it and denied Mary’s motion to list it for sale.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that the disputed provision is ambiguous because both parties offered reasonable interpretations. Mary reasonably read the agreement to require listing the farm after two years while allowing Fred to continue farming during the marketing period. Fred reasonably read “at least” and the provisions contemplating continued joint ownership to permit him to farm beyond two years without an immediate obligation to list the property.
Because the agreement does not explain whether Fred’s continued farming postpones the listing obligation or may continue while the farm is listed, the parties’ intent cannot be determined from the agreement alone. The court vacated the September 3, 2025, order and remanded for the family court to consider extrinsic evidence, make necessary factual findings, and determine the parties’ intended relationship between Fred’s continuing use and the requirement to list the farm.
Key Takeaways
- A property settlement agreement incorporated into a dissolution decree is interpreted and enforced under contract principles.
- Contract language is ambiguous when it is reasonably susceptible to different interpretations, even if each party contends that the language is unambiguous.
- Once ambiguity is established, the factfinder may consider evidence about the agreement’s execution, subject matter, purposes, and the parties’ subsequent conduct.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of specifying when a marital asset must be listed or sold and how interim possession rights affect that deadline. Language guaranteeing use for “at least” a stated period can create uncertainty when paired with a direction that a sale occur “after” that period.
The ruling does not decide whether the farm must now be sold or whether Fred may continue farming it indefinitely. It returns that question to the family court for an evidence-based determination of the parties’ intent.