Background
Michael and Amanda Murphy divorced in Georgia in 2022 under a settlement agreement later registered in Kentucky. The agreement required Michael to pay Amanda $2,000 per month in maintenance for 60 months, pay their children’s private-school tuition and all uninsured health-care expenses, and satisfy other financial obligations. It also provided that the agreement could be amended or modified only through a written instrument signed by both parties and made an order of the court.
After Michael’s income declined, he sought reductions in his maintenance and child-support obligations. The Jefferson Family Court reduced his monthly child support to $1,291 but refused to modify maintenance or his responsibility for tuition and uninsured medical expenses. It also held him in civil contempt for unpaid maintenance, child support, medical expenses, and extracurricular expenses; entered arrearage judgments; and ordered him to pay $5,000 toward Amanda’s attorney fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the refusal to modify maintenance because the settlement agreement’s nonmodification clause deprived the family court of authority to alter that obligation without a signed written agreement between the parties. Michael’s claimed change in financial circumstances therefore could not support modification. The court also found no palpable error in leaving his tuition and uninsured-medical-expense obligations unchanged because he had not specifically requested that relief before judgment and the obligations rested on the parties’ express agreement.
The court affirmed the civil-contempt finding, concluding that the evidence did not compel acceptance of Michael’s impossibility defense. The family court could find that he had not taken every reasonable step to comply, particularly given the circumstances surrounding his reduced income and evidence of discretionary spending while his obligations went unpaid. The appellate court also upheld the $5,000 attorney-fee award based on the parties’ substantial income disparity and the valid contempt finding.
The court nevertheless found palpable mathematical error in the arrearage judgments. The family court overstated one judgment by $60 and separately entered a duplicative $3,322.66 judgment for medical and extracurricular expenses already included elsewhere. It therefore vacated the duplicative judgment and remanded with instructions to reduce the other judgment’s principal from $27,382.66 to $27,322.66.
Key Takeaways
- A settlement agreement may expressly bar judicial modification of maintenance absent a signed written amendment, even when changed circumstances allegedly make the obligation unconscionable.
- A party generally cannot preserve a new request to modify child-related expenses by raising it for the first time in a post-judgment motion.
- An inability-to-pay defense to civil contempt requires clear proof that the obligor was without fault and took every reasonable step to comply.
- Appellate courts may correct palpable mathematical errors that create unsupported or duplicative arrearage judgments.
Why It Matters
The opinion underscores that negotiated nonmodification clauses can place maintenance obligations beyond a family court’s continuing equitable authority. Parties seeking relief from separately agreed child-related expenses must also request that relief clearly and before judgment rather than relying on a broad motion to modify support.
The decision also illustrates the demanding proof required to establish impossibility as a defense to civil contempt. At the same time, even unpreserved accounting mistakes may warrant correction when they impose thousands of dollars in liability unsupported by the trial court’s own factual findings.