Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Woosnam v. Woosnam

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
587 S.W.2d 262 (Ky. App. 1979)


Facts

Patricia Woosnam (plaintiff) and Kenneth Ray Woosnam (defendant) were married in 1970 and separated in 1978. For the first six years of the Woosnam's marriage, the couple resided in a home Patricia owned. The home had been purchased for $12,500 and had an existing mortgage indebtedness of $9,466.23. The home was sold for $19,175. After payment of the mortgage, Patricia used the remaining non-marital funds from the sale of the first home to purchase the couple's second home for $23,000. The Woosnams remained at the second home until their separation. When determining the value of the marital and separate property, the chancellor determined that the first home had a fair market value of $13,300 on the date of the Woosnam's marriage, and the second home had a fair market value of $37,500 upon the Woosnam's separation. Kentucky is an equitable-distribution state, meaning the court works to create a fair, but not necessarily equal, division of marital property in a divorce proceeding. The chancellor determined that Patricia had a separate interest in the first property totaling $3,833.77, which equaled the fair market value of $13,300 minus the mortgage indebtedness of $9,466.23. The chancellor then determined that this sum equaled 28.8 percent of the property value and awarded Patricia that percentage of the sale price, which totaled $5,587.20. Patricia appealed, alleging that the chancellor did not restore the proper amount of separate property to her.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Gudgel, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 178,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.