Background
Brittany Morgan Stocks sought domestic-violence protection against her husband, John Ryan Stocks, after alleging escalating behavior in their home. The Fayette Circuit Family Court issued an emergency protective order, and the parties later negotiated temporary joint custody within its restrictions. They ultimately signed an agreed order providing for a one-year domestic violence order on substantially the same conditions as an amended emergency protective order.
Stocks later sought to undo the agreed DVO, alleging that his former attorney coerced him into signing it by threatening to withdraw if he insisted on testifying despite pending criminal charges. The Family Court denied his initial post-judgment motion but modified a geographic restriction that had interfered with his business. Stocks subsequently moved for relief under Kentucky Civil Rule 60.02(c) and (f), asserting falsified evidence or extraordinary circumstances and requesting a fuller evidentiary hearing. The court allowed him to testify but denied relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Stocks knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the DVO. The record showed that he had alternatives, had previously expressed satisfaction with counsel, and had actively negotiated concessions—including reduced attorney’s fees—in exchange for signing. His later regret did not establish perjury or falsified evidence under CR 60.02(c).
The court also held that counsel’s warning that she would withdraw if Stocks disregarded her advice and testified despite the risk of self-incrimination was not an extraordinary circumstance under CR 60.02(f). Even if counsel confirmed Stocks’s account, the alleged conduct would not justify vacating the judgment. Because his allegations were legally insufficient to warrant relief, the Family Court was not required to conduct a full evidentiary hearing or permit him to cross-examine former counsel.
Key Takeaways
- A party’s strategic but reluctant acceptance of an agreed DVO is not rendered involuntary merely because the party later regrets following counsel’s advice.
- An attorney’s stated intention to withdraw over a fundamental disagreement with a client’s proposed course does not, without more, constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting CR 60.02 relief.
- A court may deny a full evidentiary hearing when the movant’s allegations, even if true, would not provide a legal basis for setting aside the judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Kentucky’s strong interest in the finality of agreed judgments, including domestic violence orders. CR 60.02 is reserved for unusual and compelling circumstances, not for revisiting a litigation choice made after receiving legal advice and negotiating concessions.
It also confirms that trial courts need not convene a broader evidentiary proceeding when the asserted facts would remain insufficient to justify post-judgment relief.