In a Kentucky divorce matter, the wife worked for the husband’s veterinary practice that he had purchased prior to their marriage. She admitted that, when they separated, she took a suitcase full of jewelry that was acquired during the marriage. Plus, she admitted that she did not fully comply with the court’s order to return all the jewelry so it could be accounted for and valued. The husband also alleged that she took business records that would establish the value of the practice at the time of their marriage. In its ruling, the court did not require the wife to account for the missing jewelry and it did not consider the date of marriage when valuing the veterinary practice. The husband sold the practice after the couple separated for $298,887, which was mostly goodwill (which the court found to be enterprise goodwill), and, thus, the court ruled that the sales proceeds were marital property.

The husband appealed and prevailed on the jewelry but not the practice valuation. The appellate court set aside the lower court’s judgment on the jewelry, so the wife has the burden to prove the disposition and value of the jewelry she did not return. But the court affirmed the lower court’s valuation of the practice and that the sales proceeds were marital property.

The case is Cummings v. Cummings, 2023 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 116; 2023 WL 2052272, and a case analysis and full court opinion are on the BVLaw platform.