RENDERED: JANUARY 30, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0425-MR
BRADLEY MEADE APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FLOYD CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JANIE MCKENZIE WELLS, SPECIAL JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-CI-00665
BETTY TACKETT, INDIVIDUALLY; BETTY TACKETT, GUARDIAN FOR HENRY MEADE; LINDA LOU ALLEN, INDIVIDUALLY; LINDA LOU ALLEN, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF HENRY MEADE, DECEASED; AND LANA K. KING APPELLEES
OPINION VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: ACREE, CETRULO, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
TAYLOR, JUDGE: Bradley Meade brings this appeal from an Order of the Floyd
Circuit Court entered February 22, 2024, dismissing his lawsuit against Betty
Tackett, Lana K. King and Linda Lou Allen for misappropriation of estate funds, breach of fiduciary duty, and to obtain a court ordered sale of indivisible real
property. For the reasons stated, we vacate and remand.
BACKGROUND
Bradley Meade filed this action on November 13, 2023, in Floyd
Circuit Court. The case was dismissed shortly after the complaint was filed by
order entered on February 22, 2024. No discovery was taken nor did the court
conduct an evidentiary hearing. The meager record in this case contains only 20
pages. Nevertheless, we have ascertained the following facts: Bradley and the
other parties to this case are relatives and beneficiaries under the Last Will and
Testament of Henry Meade. Meade died testate on October 28, 2020. Prior to his
death, Betty Tackett (a daughter), initiated a disability petition against Meade in
Floyd District Court on April 5, 2019, Case No. 19-H-00050-001. Tackett was
appointed guardian and conservator for Meade on September 23, 2019. After
Meade’s death, Linda Allen (a daughter) filed a petition to probate Meade’s will
and administer his estate in Floyd District Court on July 14, 2021, Case No. 21-P-
00343. The court entered an order probating the will and appointing Allen as
executrix by order entered on August 13, 2021.1
1 This Court takes judicial notice of all pleadings, orders, and judgments in the guardianship and probate cases in Floyd District Court referenced in this Opinion and the parties’ briefs. Doe v. Golden & Walters, PLLC, 173 S.W.3d 260, 264-65 (Ky. App. 2005).
-2- Pursuant to the will, a specific bequest in the amount of $1,000 was
left to Henry Meade, Jr. (his son). The remainder of Meade’s estate, including
realty and personalty, was divided equally between Tackett, Allen, Bradley, and
Lana K. King (a daughter). Bradley (son of Henry Meade, Jr.) is a grandson of
Meade.
The gist of Bradley’s complaint alleges that Tackett and Allen
misappropriated estate funds. Specifically, the complaint alleges, Tackett was
involved in inducing Meade to make withdrawals from his bank accounts and
transfer the same to payable-on-death accounts in her own name and/or those of
the other defendants. Bradley alleges these were funds that should have been
recovered by Allen for distribution as part of the estate upon Meade’s death in
2021. Record at 1-2. Tackett and Allen were sued individually and in their roles
as guardian and executrix, respectively. The complaint also asserted a claim for a
court ordered sale of indivisible real property inherited under the will by Bradley,
Tackett, Allen, and King, in accordance with applicable law.
Before the taking of any discovery, Tackett, Allen, and King filed a
motion to dismiss on December 14, 2023, presumably pursuant to Kentucky Rules
of Civil Procedure (CR) 12.02.2 The motion set forth two grounds for dismissal:
2 The motion to dismiss is not contained in the record on appeal, although it is listed in the Case History. Bradley Meade provided a copy in his appellate brief as Appendix 3.
-3- lack of standing by Meade and the statute of limitations. The court conducted a
hearing on the motion to dismiss on February 2, 2024.3 Counsel for appellees
argued that the action arose from the probating of Meade’s will and administration
of his estate. Appellees argued that a final settlement had been filed showing the
estate had been divided among the four beneficiaries.4 Counsel for appellees
displayed to the court at the hearing a flowchart of the alleged transactions at issue,
that was not entered into evidence.5 Appellees argued that no remedy was
available to Bradley, a beneficiary, for actions taken during the life of Meade since
Bradley had no interest in Meade’s estate at the time of those transactions, and
therefore he lacked standing to sue. Appellees also argued that the cause of action
was precluded by applicable statutes of limitation.
The court entered an order dismissing the complaint on March 15,
2024.6 The court found that the transactions called into question by Bradley were
performed by Meade prior to his guardianship proceeding or his death. Record at
18. The court concluded Meade had no standing to bring the action because he had
3 The hearing lasted approximately 12 minutes. 4 Neither party introduced any evidence of the probate proceedings as a part of the record in this case. And, this Court takes judicial notice that by order entered July 14, 2023, the district court has placed the probate case in abeyance pending resolution of this appeal. 5 Although a copy of the flowchart was left with the court at close of the hearing, it is not filed in the record on appeal. 6 The order was signed on February 22, 2024. There is no explanation for the delay in entry.
-4- no interest as an heir in actions taken by the decedent while he was alive. The
court also held that Meade had not filed the complaint within the allowable statute
of limitations as regards actions relating to personal property, as set forth in
Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 413.125 or KRS 413.140. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The motion to dismiss was filed pursuant to CR 12.02. A motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is governed by
CR 12.02(f) and presents a question of law which we review de novo. Campbell v.
Ballard, 559 S.W.3d 869, 870 (Ky. App. 2018). The pleadings are liberally
construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and allegations in the complaint
are taken as true. Id. at 870-71. In the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, the court should not grant the motion unless it appears the
complaining party “would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts which
could be proved in support of his claim.” James v. Wilson, 95 S.W.3d 875, 883
(Ky. App. 2002) (quoting Pari–Mutuel Clerks’ Union v. Kentucky Jockey
Club, 551 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Ky. 1977)).
ANALYSIS
To begin, we note that this is an action related to the administration of
an estate. The circuit court concluded Bradley lacked standing to file the action on
the premise that as a grandchild, he was not a direct heir of Meade. We disagree.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RENDERED: JANUARY 30, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0425-MR
BRADLEY MEADE APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FLOYD CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JANIE MCKENZIE WELLS, SPECIAL JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-CI-00665
BETTY TACKETT, INDIVIDUALLY; BETTY TACKETT, GUARDIAN FOR HENRY MEADE; LINDA LOU ALLEN, INDIVIDUALLY; LINDA LOU ALLEN, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF HENRY MEADE, DECEASED; AND LANA K. KING APPELLEES
OPINION VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: ACREE, CETRULO, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
TAYLOR, JUDGE: Bradley Meade brings this appeal from an Order of the Floyd
Circuit Court entered February 22, 2024, dismissing his lawsuit against Betty
Tackett, Lana K. King and Linda Lou Allen for misappropriation of estate funds, breach of fiduciary duty, and to obtain a court ordered sale of indivisible real
property. For the reasons stated, we vacate and remand.
BACKGROUND
Bradley Meade filed this action on November 13, 2023, in Floyd
Circuit Court. The case was dismissed shortly after the complaint was filed by
order entered on February 22, 2024. No discovery was taken nor did the court
conduct an evidentiary hearing. The meager record in this case contains only 20
pages. Nevertheless, we have ascertained the following facts: Bradley and the
other parties to this case are relatives and beneficiaries under the Last Will and
Testament of Henry Meade. Meade died testate on October 28, 2020. Prior to his
death, Betty Tackett (a daughter), initiated a disability petition against Meade in
Floyd District Court on April 5, 2019, Case No. 19-H-00050-001. Tackett was
appointed guardian and conservator for Meade on September 23, 2019. After
Meade’s death, Linda Allen (a daughter) filed a petition to probate Meade’s will
and administer his estate in Floyd District Court on July 14, 2021, Case No. 21-P-
00343. The court entered an order probating the will and appointing Allen as
executrix by order entered on August 13, 2021.1
1 This Court takes judicial notice of all pleadings, orders, and judgments in the guardianship and probate cases in Floyd District Court referenced in this Opinion and the parties’ briefs. Doe v. Golden & Walters, PLLC, 173 S.W.3d 260, 264-65 (Ky. App. 2005).
-2- Pursuant to the will, a specific bequest in the amount of $1,000 was
left to Henry Meade, Jr. (his son). The remainder of Meade’s estate, including
realty and personalty, was divided equally between Tackett, Allen, Bradley, and
Lana K. King (a daughter). Bradley (son of Henry Meade, Jr.) is a grandson of
Meade.
The gist of Bradley’s complaint alleges that Tackett and Allen
misappropriated estate funds. Specifically, the complaint alleges, Tackett was
involved in inducing Meade to make withdrawals from his bank accounts and
transfer the same to payable-on-death accounts in her own name and/or those of
the other defendants. Bradley alleges these were funds that should have been
recovered by Allen for distribution as part of the estate upon Meade’s death in
2021. Record at 1-2. Tackett and Allen were sued individually and in their roles
as guardian and executrix, respectively. The complaint also asserted a claim for a
court ordered sale of indivisible real property inherited under the will by Bradley,
Tackett, Allen, and King, in accordance with applicable law.
Before the taking of any discovery, Tackett, Allen, and King filed a
motion to dismiss on December 14, 2023, presumably pursuant to Kentucky Rules
of Civil Procedure (CR) 12.02.2 The motion set forth two grounds for dismissal:
2 The motion to dismiss is not contained in the record on appeal, although it is listed in the Case History. Bradley Meade provided a copy in his appellate brief as Appendix 3.
-3- lack of standing by Meade and the statute of limitations. The court conducted a
hearing on the motion to dismiss on February 2, 2024.3 Counsel for appellees
argued that the action arose from the probating of Meade’s will and administration
of his estate. Appellees argued that a final settlement had been filed showing the
estate had been divided among the four beneficiaries.4 Counsel for appellees
displayed to the court at the hearing a flowchart of the alleged transactions at issue,
that was not entered into evidence.5 Appellees argued that no remedy was
available to Bradley, a beneficiary, for actions taken during the life of Meade since
Bradley had no interest in Meade’s estate at the time of those transactions, and
therefore he lacked standing to sue. Appellees also argued that the cause of action
was precluded by applicable statutes of limitation.
The court entered an order dismissing the complaint on March 15,
2024.6 The court found that the transactions called into question by Bradley were
performed by Meade prior to his guardianship proceeding or his death. Record at
18. The court concluded Meade had no standing to bring the action because he had
3 The hearing lasted approximately 12 minutes. 4 Neither party introduced any evidence of the probate proceedings as a part of the record in this case. And, this Court takes judicial notice that by order entered July 14, 2023, the district court has placed the probate case in abeyance pending resolution of this appeal. 5 Although a copy of the flowchart was left with the court at close of the hearing, it is not filed in the record on appeal. 6 The order was signed on February 22, 2024. There is no explanation for the delay in entry.
-4- no interest as an heir in actions taken by the decedent while he was alive. The
court also held that Meade had not filed the complaint within the allowable statute
of limitations as regards actions relating to personal property, as set forth in
Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 413.125 or KRS 413.140. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The motion to dismiss was filed pursuant to CR 12.02. A motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is governed by
CR 12.02(f) and presents a question of law which we review de novo. Campbell v.
Ballard, 559 S.W.3d 869, 870 (Ky. App. 2018). The pleadings are liberally
construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and allegations in the complaint
are taken as true. Id. at 870-71. In the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, the court should not grant the motion unless it appears the
complaining party “would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts which
could be proved in support of his claim.” James v. Wilson, 95 S.W.3d 875, 883
(Ky. App. 2002) (quoting Pari–Mutuel Clerks’ Union v. Kentucky Jockey
Club, 551 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Ky. 1977)).
ANALYSIS
To begin, we note that this is an action related to the administration of
an estate. The circuit court concluded Bradley lacked standing to file the action on
the premise that as a grandchild, he was not a direct heir of Meade. We disagree.
-5- Under KRS 24A.120, a district court shall have exclusive jurisdiction
over:
(2) Matters involving probate, except matters contested in an adversary proceeding. Such adversary proceeding shall be filed in Circuit Court in accordance with the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure and shall not be considered an appeal;
(3) Matters not provided for by statute to be commenced in Circuit Court shall be deemed to be nonadversarial within the meaning of subsection (2) of this section and therefore are within the jurisdiction of the District Court[.]
Thus, under KRS 24A.120, the district court has jurisdiction over probate matters
with the exception of contested matters raised in an adversary proceeding. At that
point, the circuit court assumes exclusive jurisdiction over contested matters raised
in the adversary proceeding.
KRS 395.510 “is a statute which allows circuit court [to exercise]
jurisdiction for settlement of a decedent’s estate.” Goff v. Edwards, 653 S.W.3d
847, 851 (Ky. 2022). The statute reads, in pertinent part:
(1) A representative, legatee, distributee or creditor of a deceased person may bring an action in circuit court for the settlement of his estate provided that no such suit shall be brought by any of the parties named except the personal representative until the expiration of six (6) months after the qualification of such representative.
There can be no dispute that Bradley is a legatee under Meade’s will
who has standing to assert a contested matter in the administration of Meade’s
-6- estate. While perhaps not artfully drafted, the complaint on its face, giving it a
liberal construction, appears to be alleging that the executor of the estate failed to
pursue estate assets that were converted by Tackett, while she exercised her duties
as Meade’s guardian and that the executor may have in fact participated in such
conversion, to the detriment of the estate and its beneficiaries. We note KRS
395.510 has been broadly interpreted to allow claims against an executor of an
estate for mismanagement and fraud. Priestley v. Priestley, 949 S.W.2d 594, 597
(Ky. 1997). See also Citizens’ Nat’l Bank v. Brewer, 69 S.W.2d 745, 747 (Ky.
1934).
While this Court takes no position on the merits of these claims, this
case is clearly a contested adversary proceeding involving Meade’s estate
permissible under KRS 395.510. At a minimum, the dismissal of the complaint
was premature at this early stage of the case without the parties being permitted to
conduct discovery to address the merits of the claims.
As concerns the claims against Tackett, she is also a beneficiary under
Meade’s will who was in a fiduciary relationship with Meade upon her
appointment as his guardian and conservator on September 23, 2019. Upon
Meade’s death on October 28, 2020, the guardianship and conservatorship ended.
Yet, appellees note in their brief that a final settlement was not filed with district
court until July 6, 2021. Appellee’s Brief at 2. On its face, this is concerning.
-7- Nothing in this meager record on appeal reflects whether Tackett
complied with KRS 387.710(3) upon Meade’s death or whether Allen as executor
reviewed Tackett’s final accounting or received all of the assets owned by Meade
at the time of his death. Given these circumstances, discovery into Tackett’s
handling of Meade’s assets from the date of her appointment as guardian and
conservator is permissible in this action based on the allegations set out in the
complaint, especially as concerns any transactions between Tackett and Allen.
Similarly, discovery is permissible into Allen’s handling of Meade’s assets upon
his death, including any interaction with Tackett as guardian/conservator for
Until discovery is taken to determine the viability of any claims
asserted by Bradley, it was also premature to determine what statutes of
limitations, if any, were applicable to the claims. Without discovery it is
impossible to determine whether any statutes had begun to run, assuming the
statutes of limitations were applicable. Accordingly, we shall not address these
arguments at this time given we are vacating and remanding this action for further
proceedings. Again, nothing in this Opinion precludes this issue from being
brought before the circuit court again upon completion of discovery.
Finally, the complaint also sought the sale of indivisible real property
jointly owned by the four beneficiaries under Meade’s will. Neither party
-8- addressed this issue in their briefs. Nor shall this Court address the merits of this
issue in this appeal. However, we note that such a sale of jointly owned property is
permissible in Kentucky and governed by KRS 389A.030 et seq. Notwithstanding,
we have serious reservations that such an action constitutes a contested estate
matter under KRS 395.510. Neither the estate nor its personal representative has
any interest in the real property or involvement in the sale pursuant to KRS
389A.030.7 See Slone v. Casey, 194 S.W.3d 336, 337-38 (Ky. App. 2006).
For the reasons stated, we vacate and remand this case to the Floyd
Circuit Court for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:
Lawrence R. Webster Ron Diddle Pikeville, Kentucky Pikeville, Kentucky
7 A deed dated October 21, 2022, from Linda Allen as executor, conveying Meade’s real property to Allen, Tackett, King, and Bradley is attached to the complaint. Record at 5-8. We are puzzled by the estate’s involvement with the real property owned by Meade as it passed directly to his beneficiaries under his will at the time of his death. Wood v. Wingfield, 816 S.W.2d 899, 902 (Ky. 1991). The real property did not pass through the estate. Id. The only exception to this rule is where the personal estate of the decedent is insufficient to pay all of the debts of the estate, a court my order the real property passing to devisees to be sold for the payment of such debts. See KRS 395.515; Gregory v. Hardgrove, 562 S.W.3d 911, 914-15 (Ky. 2018).
-9-