CourtListener opinion 10745149

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

RENDERED NOVEMBER 8 2024 10 00 A M
 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

 (finmmnnwealth Hf fientutkg
 ('Inurt at impala

 NO 2023 CA 1136 MR

CHASTITY ELLISON APPELLANT

 APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT
 FAMILY COURT DIVISION
v HONORABLE TERRI KING SCHOBORG JUDGE
 ACTION NO 21 CI 01554

WAYNE ELLISON APPELLEE

 OPINION AND ORDER
 DISMISSING

 ** an: an: an: **

BEFORE ECKERLE A JONES AND TAYLOR JUDGES

TAYLOR JUDGE Chastity Ellison appeals fiom a July 25 2023 Order entered

by the Kenton Circuit Court, Family Court Division (family court), setting aside,

mmc pro tune, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered by the
 family court on January 1 1, 2023 ' For the reasons stated, we dismiss this appeal

as being interlocutory

 The marriage of Chastity and Wayne Ellison was dissolved by decree

entered by the Kenton Family Court on April 15, 2022 The parties had been

married for slightly more than three years Under the Separation Agreement

entered into by the parties, the marital interest of Wayne's 401K account would be

divided equally pursuant to a QDRO that the parties would agree to tender to the

court The family court entered the QDRO on January 1 1, 2023 Wayne believed

that the marital interest of the 401K account was $75,903 30, plus any investment

earnings However, the QDRO language apparently allowed a distribution to

Chastity from Wayne's nonmarital funds On February 3, 2023, the plan

administrator distributed to Chastity the sum of approximately $164,000,

substantially more than provided for under the terms of the Separation Agreement

Thereafier, Wayne filed on February 14, 2023, a Kentucky Rules of Civil

Procedure (CR) 60 01 motion to set aside the QDRO and obtain reimbursement of

the funds overpaid to Chastity from the 401K Following an evidentiary hearing

conducted on April 10 2023 June 5 2023 and June 26 2023 the family court

' Counsel for Chastity Ellison filed a notice of bankruptcy with this Conn on October 4 2023
The bankruptcy was filed on September 25 2023 three days before this appeal was filed Based
on our review the automatic stay provisions of l 1 United States Code § 362 do not apply to this
case Notwithstanding the bankruptcy was dismissed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of Ohio on July 9 2024

 2
 concluded in its July 25 2023 Order that the QDRO did not clerically comport

with the Separation Agreement, resulting in a "windfall" payment to Chastity

under the QDRO °

 In its July 25 2023 Order the family court held

 It is the opinion of this Court that [Chastity] was unjustly
 enriched by the execution of the QDRO which the court
 declares void as to the parties The Court concludes as a
 matter of law that a determination needs to be made as to
 the value of [Wayne's] non marital interest in his 401K
 account, including the appreciation in the value of those
 funds Such calculation should be performed by
 someone with expertise in that area

Order at 13

 Due to that holding, the family court granted Wayne's motion to set

aside the QDRO and issued the following directives, in relevant part

 2 Within ten (10) days from the entry of this Order, the
 parties are directed to agree upon an expert to calculate
 the value of [Wayne's] non marital interest in his 401K
 account and similarly the value of the marital interest in
 in [Wayne's] 401K account, including the appreciation in
 value for both [Wayne's] non marital interest and the
 marital interest

 3 [Wayne] and [Chastity] shall share the cost of the
 services of such expert

7 The motion filed by Wayne Ellison actually references Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure
(CR) 60 02 However following the evidentiary hearing the family court concluded that the
motion was properly filed under CR 60 01 as the Qualified Domestic Relations Order contained
a clerical mistake that was inconsistent with the agreement of the parties as set out in their
Separation Agreement

 3
 4 Upon the determination of the value of the marital
 interest in [Wayne's] account which should have been
 equally divided between the parties, [Wayne] shall be
 entitled to a Lump Sum Judgment in the amount of the
 difference between fifty percent (50%) of the marital
 portion which [Chastity] should have received and the
 amount that was transferred by QDRO to [Chastity]

Order at 13

 The family court concluded that Chastity was liable to Wayne for

unjust enrichment as a result of a clerical mistake in the QDRO The court could

not determine the amount of money Chastity was required to reimburse Wayne as a

result of the improper distribution from Wayne's 401K, pending the parties

compliance with the court's directives set out in the Order Additionally, the

court's July 25, 2023, Order did not recite that it was "final" and that there was "no

just reason for delay," as required by CR 54 02(1) On its face, the Order was

interlocutory and not appealable

 However, upon entry of the July 25, 2023, Order setting aside the

QDRO, Chastity moved the family court on August 3, 2023, to amend the Order

Chastity also requested that the Order be vacated pursuant to CR 59 05 By Order

entered August 17 2023, the family court denied the motion, stating in relevant

part

 1 [Chastity's] motion to amend the Court's Order of July
 25 2023[ ] and for other relief is OVERRULED

 4
 2 This Order shall be final and appealable and there is no
 just reason for delay

Order at 1 Chastity then filed this appeal

 The primary issue Chastity raises on appeal is the propriety of the

family court setting aside the QDRO and the determination that she is liable to

Wayne for unjust enrichment as a result of the overpayment from Wayne's 401K

account As noted, however, the family court only adjudicated part of that claim

liability and not damages In other words, the claim was not adjudicated in fiJll A

judicial determination that adjudicates only part of a claim is not appealable, even

if the order it arises from recites the necessary language set forth in CR 54 02 See

Tax Ease LIen Invs I LLC v Br own 340 S W 3d 99 102 (Ky App 201 1)

 Notwithstanding Chastity argues that the family court's August 17

2023, Order amended the July 25, 2023, Order to render that earlier order final and

appealable We disagree In Blown, this Court explained that if the finality

recitations do not appear in thejudgment itself, a subsequent order revising the

judgment "must specifically incorporate finality language in the judgment " Id at

104 Here, paragraph "2" of the family court's August 17, 2023, Order did not do

that; by its own plain language, the August 17, 2023, Order merely designated that

order as being final and appealable An order denying a motion to alter, amend, or

vacate (a CR 59 05 motion) is never final and appealable regardless of whether

the order includes the CR 54 02 finality language, or whether the motion was

 5
 b1 ought under the auspices of CR 54 02 or CR 59 05 See Brown 340 S W 3d at

103 And, a lower court has no authority to reconsider an interlocutory order under

CR 59 05 Id

 In summation, the family court's July 25, 2023, Order is a

nonappealable, interlocutory order and this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the

same Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED

 ALL CONCUR

 ENTERED NOV 0 3 2024 .

 AMA ALIA 1

 J inGE COURT W‘EAL

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT BRIEF FOR APPELLEE

Jeffrey O Casazza Jacqueline S Sawyers
Florence Kentucky Fort Mitchell Kentucky

 6