Journeypure Bowling Green, LLC v. The Mediccal Center at Clinton County, Inc. D/B/A the Medical Center at Albany

Court of Appeals of Kentucky·Decided August 15, 2025·No. 2024-CA-0176·Unpublished

Opinion

RENDERED: AUGUST 15, 2025; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2024-CA-0176-MR

JOURNEYPURE BOWLING GREEN, LLC; JOURNEYPURE HOLDINGS, INC.; JOURNEYPURE, LLC; AND REGARD RECOVERY JP, LLC APPELLANTS

APPEAL FROM CLINTON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DAVID L. WILLIAMS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-CI-00077

THE MEDICAL CENTER AT CLINTON COUNTY, INC. D/B/A THE MEDICAL CENTER AT ALBANY APPELLEE

OPINION

AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART, AND REMANDING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: KAREM, MCNEILL, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES. MCNEILL, JUDGE: This is a landlord-tenant dispute between corporate entities. Appellant, JourneyPure Bowling Green, LLC, is the Lessee. The Medical Center

at Clinton County, Inc. d/b/a The Medical Center at Albany, is the Appellee.1 The parties executed a three-year lease for commercial real estate on or about August 1, 2020 (hereafter, the “Lease”). They amended the Lease and then executed a Consent to Assignment Agreement. Appellee filed suit in Clinton County Circuit Court on June 15, 2023, alleging that Appellants failed to pay rent required under the terms of the Lease. The Complaint specifically alleges the following:

10. The Lease Agreement was amended by an Addendum to Lease effective April 5, 2021 and a Second Addendum to Lease effective May 1, 2022 to a four-year lease term. A complete copy of the Lease Agreement, including the aforementioned addenda, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

11. Additionally, Medical Center Albany and JourneyPure executed a Consent to Assignment by letter from JourneyPure dated September 2, 2021. A copy of said Consent to Assignment is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

12. The Consent to Assignment provided that JourneyPure “intend[ed] to sell substantially all of its assets to Regard Recovery JP, LLC . . . pursuant to an Equity Purchase Agreement . . .” Specifically, the parties agreed, inter alia, that “the [Lease] will continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms following the Closing.”

1 The other Appellants named in the caption are entities either directly or tangentially associated with JourneyPure Bowling Green, LLC. To be clear, the underlying lease was executed by a representative of JourneyPure Bowling Green, LLC. Therefore, we will reference that Appellant as “Lessee.” The other corporate entities will be discussed as necessary.

13. Article 14.1 of the Lease Agreement provided that “[i]n the event Tenant assigns the Lease or sublets the Premises, Tenant shall continue to be liable for all payments and performance under this Lease unless released by Landlord, which release may be granted or denied in Landlord’s sole discretion.”

14. Medical Center Albany consented to the assignment but did not release JourneyPure from its obligations under the Lease Agreement. JourneyPure remained responsible for its obligations under the Lease Agreement, particularly its obligation to pay rent on time.

After the time for filing an Answer expired, Appellee filed a motion for a default judgment on July 26, 2023. A hearing on the motion was held on August 10, 2023. Appellants did not attend, and a default judgment was ordered.2 Appellants filed an Answer on August 23, 2023. In an order entered on September 22, 2023, the circuit court granted Appellee’s motion to strike the Answer and entered a default judgment in Appellee’s favor “in the amount of $437,930.00, plus pre-judgment interest in the amount of $28,777.28, [and] post-judgment interest at the legal rate of 6% from the date of entry of this order to the date the default judgment amount is paid in full, and attorney’s fees and court costs to be determined at a later date by the Court.” Appellee filed a Notice of Judgment Lien on December 13, 2023.

2 It is unclear whether the court entered a default judgment from the bench at the hearing. In any event, in an order entered on September 22, 2023, the court memorialized that the default judgment was “[g]ranted on August 10, 2023 . . . .”

Appellants filed a motion to set aside the default judgment and to release the judgment lien. In an order entered on January 25, 2024, the court denied the then “pending motions.” Therein, the court denied the motions to set aside the default and to release the lien.3 Appellants appeal to this Court as a matter of right. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Although default judgments are not favored, trial courts possess broad discretion in considering motions to set them aside and we will not disturb the exercise of that discretion absent abuse.” Howard v. Fountain, 749 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Ky. App. 1988) (citation omitted). A trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Miller v. Eldridge, 146 S.W.3d 909, 914 (Ky. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). CR4 55.02 provides: “For good cause shown the court may set aside a judgment by default in accordance with Rule 60.02.” (Emphasis added.) See VerraLab Ja LLC v. Cemerlic, 584 S.W.3d

3 The court granted Appellants’ motion to file a counterclaim in an order entered on January 19, 2024. 4 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

284, 287 (Ky. 2019) (“Good cause is not mere inattention on the part of the defendant . . . .”) (citation omitted).

CR 60.02 provides in relevant part: “On motion a court may, upon such terms as are just, relieve a party or his legal representative from its final judgment, order, or proceeding upon the following grounds: (a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect . . . or (f) any other reason of an extraordinary nature justifying relief.” “We review the denial of a CR 60.02 motion under an abuse of discretion standard.” Foley v. Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d 880, 886 (Ky. 2014) (citation omitted). With these standards in mind, we now return to the present case.

ANALYSIS

For their first argument, Appellants contend that the circuit court’s “Order on Pending Motions” was interlocutory. “It is fundamental that a court must have jurisdiction before it has authority to decide a case.” Wilson v. Russell, 162 S.W.3d 911, 913 (Ky. 2005). “Our rules require that there be a final order or judgment from which an appeal is taken.” Id. (footnote omitted). CR 54.01 defines a final and appealable order as, “a final order adjudicating all the rights of all the parties in an action or proceeding, or a judgment made final under Rule 54.02.”

In an action involving multiple claims and/or multiple parties CR 54.02(1) permits the circuit court to make an otherwise interlocutory order final and appealable upon a determination there is no just cause for delay. Turner Constr. Co. v. Smith Bros., Inc., 295 S.W.2d 569 (Ky. 1956). It is within the circuit court’s discretion to “release” a claim for appeal. See Watson v. Best Fin. Servs., Inc., 245 S.W.3d 722, 726 (Ky. 2008). However, if an order is inherently interlocutory, CR 54.02 finality recitations cannot make it final. Hale v. Deaton, 528 S.W.2d 719, 722 (Ky. 1975).

To be clear, the order from which the appeal is taken includes recitations mandated by CR 54.02(1). Nevertheless, Appellants assert that the order is an interlocutory, in part, because its pending counterclaims negate finality. We disagree. See Watson, 245 S.W.3d at 726 (“By the express provisions of CR 54.02, however, a trial court may grant a final judgment on less than all the claims when more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, even when the remaining claim is a counterclaim.”). There is no further indication that the order from which Appellants appeal is inherently interlocutory, or otherwise impermissible for purposes of appellate review. We will now address the merits of the motion to set aside the default.

“Factors to consider in deciding whether to set aside a judgment are:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Journeypure Bowling Green, LLC v. The Mediccal Center at Clinton County, Inc. D/B/A the Medical Center at Albany, (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).

Journeypure Bowling Green, LLC v. The Mediccal Center at Clinton County, Inc. D/B/A the Medical Center at Albany (Journeypure Bowling Green, LLC v. The Mediccal Center at Clinton County, Inc. D/B/A the Medical Center at Albany) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Deskins v. Estep
314 S.W.3d 300 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2010)
Perry v. Central Bank & Trust Co.
812 S.W.2d 166 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1991)
Hale v. Deaton
528 S.W.2d 719 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1975)
Watson v. Best Financial Services, Inc.
245 S.W.3d 722 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2008)
Turner Construction Co. v. Smith Brothers, Inc.
295 S.W.2d 569 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1956)
Wilson v. Russell
162 S.W.3d 911 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2005)
Miller v. Eldridge
146 S.W.3d 909 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2004)
Howard v. Fountain
749 S.W.2d 690 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1988)
State Farm Insurance Co. v. Edwards
339 S.W.3d 456 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2011)
Johnson v. Smith
885 S.W.2d 944 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1994)
Foley v. Commonwealth
425 S.W.3d 880 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2014)