Cameron v. Cameron
Kentucky Supreme Court
265 S.W.3d 797 (2008)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Lynea Cameron (plaintiff) and Donald Cameron (defendant) married in 1988 and had a child. Donald’s father owned a farm where Donald, Lynea, and their child lived. Donald managed the farm in exchange for the family’s living expenses. Donald and Lynea divorced in 1998 without a property settlement. Donald’s father gave Donald several farms. Lynea and Donald remarried in January 2002 and lived together with their child on one of Donald’s farms. Donald filed for divorce in October 2002, and Lynea moved to her mother’s house. Donald asked Lynea to reconcile, and they agreed to a separation agreement written by Donald’s lawyer that provided that all Donald’s and Lynea’s property, including separate property such as the farms, would be equally divided. If Lynea and Donald reconciled and cohabitated, the agreement would be void. Lynea did not move back into the marital home, and she kept all her personal property at her mother’s house. Lynea and Donald spent weekends together with their daughter and went on vacation together, but they did not share a bedroom. After some time, Lynea filed for divorce, and Donald moved to set aside the separation agreement, arguing that he and Lynea had reconciled after entering into the agreement. At trial, Lynea testified that there was not a reconciliation. The trial court found Lynea’s testimony credible and held that that the separation agreement was valid. Donald appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cunningham, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.