Stephen William Baralt v. Melissa Mitchell Baralt

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: January 19, 2023
• Docket: 2021 CA 000365
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

RENDERED: JANUARY 20, 2023; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

NO. 2021-CA-0365-MR

STEPHEN WILLIAM BARALT APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM SPENCER CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE S. MARIE HELLARD, JUDGE ACTION NO. 13-CI-00201

MELISSA MITCHELL BARALT APPELLEE

OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: DIXON, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: The parties in the present case were divorced by decree of the

Spencer Circuit Court, Family Division, in 2015. They had minor children at the

time. According to Appellant’s brief, he alleged over 1,000 individual instances of

contempt of the underlying litigation. He suggested to the trial court in various

orders that he be awarded over $100,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and that Appellee rectify her alleged parental alienation by submitting herself to counseling

and written apologies to the children.

In a handwritten order entered on January 26, 2021, the family court

stated that all issues relating to attorneys’ fees, contempt, etc., were previously

determined pursuant to the court’s December 7, 2020 docket order. However, the

order further states that the motions for contempt and attorneys’ fees were not

preserved and that the court had previously determined all issues relating to the

parties’ children were moot. It is undisputed that the children are now adults. In

another handwritten docket order entered on March 2, 2021 the court stated that

the January 26, 2021 order is final and appealable. Appellant appeals from that

order as a matter of right. For the following reasons, we affirm.

ANALYSIS

When a court exercises its contempt powers, it has nearly unlimited discretion. Consequently, we will not disturb a court’s decision regarding contempt absent an abuse of its discretion. The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial [court’s] decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.

Meyers v. Petrie, 233 S.W.3d 212, 215 (Ky. App. 2007) (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted). Appellant cites to numerous portions of the record where

he filed motions for contempt. However, he has not raised any specific instance of

alleged contempt or cited to any substantive ruling for this Court to review. It

-2- appears that his general argument is that the family court did not adequately

address his various motions, and that it also failed to do so in a timely manner. In

any event, considering the immense discretion afforded the circuit court and the

record presented, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion here.

Therefore, we affirm the Spencer Circuit Court.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

W. Steven Middleton Kevin P. Fox Frankfort, Kentucky Frankfort, Kentucky

-3-