Timothy Taylor v. Jonathan Singleton

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: May 8, 2026
• Docket: 2024-CA-1302
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

RENDERED: MAY 8, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-1302-MR

TIMOTHY TAYLOR APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JOSEPH W. CASTLEN, III, SPECIAL JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-CI-00371

JONATHAN SINGLETON APPELLEE

OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND MOYNAHAN, JUDGES.

ACREE, JUDGE: Timothy Taylor appeals the Daviess Circuit Court’s judgment

following jury trial. The jury found for Appellee Jonathan Singleton in a dispute

over an oral contract for a loan and awarded him damages. Taylor’s sole argument

is that the trial court erred by denying his motion to transfer venue. We affirm. Early in the litigation, Taylor moved for a change of venue. The only

authority he cited was KRS1 452.105 which says if a court “determines that the

court lacks venue to try the case . . . , the judge, upon motion of a party, shall

transfer the case to the court with the proper venue.” KRS 452.105 (emphasis

added).

The predicate that must be satisfied to compel an order of venue

transfer is a determination—the trial court’s ruling—that the venue where the

judge sits is improper. Taylor never gave the trial court an opportunity to satisfy

that predicate by presenting some authority to support such a ruling. In fact, the

record shows Taylor never argued there was such authority all the way until he

filed his reply brief. There, he cited KRS 452.480 for the first time. But “[t]he

reply brief is not a device for raising new issues which are essential to the success

of the appeal.” Catron v. Citizens Union Bank, 229 S.W.3d 54, 59 (Ky. App.

2006) (citation omitted).

This appeal illustrates the legal adage, “Our jurisprudence will not

permit an appellant to feed one kettle of fish to the trial judge and another to the

appellate court.” Owens v. Commonwealth, 512 S.W.3d 1, 15 (Ky. App. 2017)

(footnote omitted). When the grounds of the argument before this Court are

“different from those asserted in the court below, [they] are not properly preserved

1 Kentucky Revised Statutes.

-2- for appellate review.” Daugherty v. Commonwealth, 572 S.W.2d 861, 863 (Ky.

1978) (citations omitted).

We will not review Taylor’s argument that KRS 452.480 says the case

was tried in the wrong venue “for the simple reason that on this appeal [an]

altogether different theor[y is] advanced for the first time . . . .” Lewis v.

Commonwealth, 318 S.W.2d 857, 859 (Ky. 1958). It is axiomatic that a trial court

must be given the opportunity to rule, and a party may not raise an issue for the

first time on appeal. See Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 544 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Ky.

1976), overruled on other grounds by Wilburn v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 321,

327 (Ky. 2010). Taylor did not seek palpable error review. Thus, further

discussion of the issue is unwarranted and would be improper.

Based on the foregoing, the October 9, 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff

entered by the Daviess Circuit Court is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Matthew J. Baker Clay Wilkey Bowling Green, Kentucky Owensboro, Kentucky

-3-