Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.200

Section 403.200(2)(f) requires considering the paying spouse's ability to meet his own needs while supporting the spouse seeking maintenance.

Bell v. Bell · filed 1973-05-04(2)(f)

The maintenance statute in KRS 403.-200(2) (f) refers to ability to produce income and the needs of the income producer.

Section 403.200 permits a trial court to consider military retirement pay when determining an appropriate amount of maintenance and support.

Russell v. Russell · filed 1980-04-25

Our conclusion to exclude military retirement pay from divisible marital property in no way precludes a trial court from considering such an asset when determining an appropriate amount for maintenance and support. KRS 403.200.

Section 403.200 authorizes maintenance awards in dissolution proceedings based on the spouses’ relative financial resources and needs.

Ogle v. Ogle · filed 1984-12-28

KRS 403.200, the statute authorizing the award of maintenance in the context of dissolution proceedings, focuses upon the relative financial resources and needs of each spouse.

Section 403.200(2)(f) requires the court to consider the paying spouse’s ability to meet their own needs when awarding maintenance.

Garrett v. Garrett · filed 1989-03-17(2)(f)

The trial court did not explain in its findings how Gaither, who cannot work and who has a fixed income insufficient for his own needs, would be able to pay maintenance to Margaret. KRS 403.200(2)(f). As the court will, upon remand, be required to make a different disposition of the property, it should re-examine the issue of maintenance, considering the financial situation of each party and the evidence as it relates to all the factors in KRS 403.200(2)(a)-(f).

Section 403.200(2)(a) treats a new financial resource as relevant to whether continued maintenance is unconscionable.

Combs v. Combs · filed 1990-04-13(2)(a)

We believe that a maintenance recipient’s cohabitation can render continued maintenance “unconscionable” if the nature of the cohabitation constitutes a new “financial resource” as contemplated in KRS 403.200(2)(a).

Section 403.200(2)(f) requires the court to consider the paying spouse’s ability to meet their own needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance.

Russell v. Russell · filed 1994-03-18(2)(f)

Finally, Frank argues that the trial court failed to consider his ability to pay maintenance under KRS 403.200(2)(f). Contrary to his argument, the trial court’s findings address his economic ability.

Section 403.200(2) requires the trial court to consider all listed factors when setting the amount and duration of maintenance.

Clark v. Clark · filed 2007-09-21(2)

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions for the trial court to review the maintenance award, taking into account all of the listed factors in KRS 403.200(2).

Section 403.200(2) requires the court to consider statutory factors when setting the amount of maintenance, including the recipient’s marital property and assigned debt.

Brenzel v. Brenzel · filed 2008-01-04(2)

KRS 403.200(2) specifies the factors which the court is to consider when determining the amount to be awarded. Of particular significance is that Jill received $107,130.20 in marital property which included $80,000 which Gregory was ordered to pay in a lump sum within six months of the judgment. Moreover, Jill was assigned a comparatively small amount of the marital debt. When it determined the amount of maintenance to award, the family court properly considered the factors set forth in KRS 403.200(2). We will not disturb its decision.

Section 403.200 requires the trial court to consider the listed factors when setting maintenance and gives it discretion over the amount and duration.

Age v. Age · filed 2011-02-04(2)

In terms of interpretation of the facts, the statute requires the trial court to make relevant findings of fact and exercise its discretion, using the enumerated factors, to determine whether to award maintenance. ... We believe the trial court’s evaluation of these factors was appropriate and find no abuse of discretion with regard to maintenance. Nor do we find the amount unreasonable or the duration of the maintenance arbitrary.

Section 403.200 requires courts deciding maintenance to consider the parties’ financial circumstances and their standard of living during the marriage.

Little v. Little · filed 2021-03-11

As to maintenance, the court stated in its order that it considered the factors listed in KRS 403.200. In addition, the court found that the parties lived in a modest house with a sizeable amount of debt associated with it. Furthermore, the court found that there was no testimony regarding a lavish lifestyle or an extravagant standard of living that would warrant maintenance. During the court’s oral statements at the conclusion of the dissolution hearing, the court also considered that the parties did not have much money “in the bank” and that both parties have always worked. Finally, the court ordered that Appellee was to be solely responsible for the mortgage payments until the marital home was sold. The court suggested that this was in lieu of maintenance and because Appellee had the greater income. We believe the trial court considered the financial situation of each party and did not abuse its discretion in declining to award maintenance.

Section 403.200 requires courts to consider both parties' after-tax income when setting the amount and duration of maintenance.

Powell v. Powell · filed 2003-08-08(2)

Accordingly, we do not consider it a great leap to also hold that the trial court should consider the after-tax income of both parties in determining the proper amount and duration of maintenance to be awarded.

A maintenance recipient’s cohabitation can constitute a new financial resource under subsection (2)(a) when it provides an economic benefit.

Block v. Block · filed 2007-05-04(2)(a)

Based on the foregoing, there can be no doubt that Mrs. Blocks’s relationship with Mr. Niemann constitutes a new “ ‘financial resource’ ” for her. Combs, 787 S.W.2d at 262 (quoting KRS 403.200(2)(a)).

Section 403.200(2)(f) requires the court to consider whether the spouse who would pay maintenance can meet his own needs while meeting the other spouse’s needs.

Lawson v. Lawson · filed 2007-06-22(2)(f)

According to KRS 403.200(2)(f), one of the factors that a trial court must consider when deciding whether to award maintenance is “[t]he ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance.” Because we cannot determine whether the trial court addressed this, we must reverse the March 11, 2004 decree to the extent that it orders John to pay maintenance of $2,500.00 to Barbara and remand for a new determination in accordance with all of the relevant factors as required by KRS 403.200(2).

A spouse’s inheritance is relevant to whether that spouse can pay maintenance while meeting their own needs.

Mosley v. Mosley · filed 2010-09-10(2)(f)

Although his inheritance is not marital property subject to division, it is relevant to David’s ability to pay maintenance while meeting his own needs.

Section 403.200(2)(f) requires courts to consider whether the paying spouse can meet their own needs while paying maintenance; ability to pay is not an independent reason to increase the award.

Normandin v. Normandin · filed 2020-12-15(2)(f)

KRS 403.200(2)(f), on the other hand, operates as an equity check, allowing courts to determine whether the resulting maintenance calculations based on the reasonable needs of the dependent spouse can be ... adequately served by the paying spouse while meeting his or her own needs.

Section 403.200(2)(f) requires courts to consider whether the paying spouse can meet both spouses’ needs; ability to pay is not an independent reason to increase maintenance.

Normandin v. Normandin · filed 2021-04-29(2)(f)

KRS 403.200(2)(f), on the other hand, operates as an equity check, allowing courts to determine whether the resulting maintenance calculations based on the reasonable needs of the dependent spouse can be adequately served by the paying spouse while meeting his or her own needs.

Section 403.200(2)(a) permits a court to consider the portion of child support attributable to the custodial spouse’s needs when setting maintenance.

Weber v. Lambe · filed 2017-03-23(2)(a)

As noted above, when determining maintenance, KRS 403.200(2)(a) permits the court to consider “the extent to which a provision for support of a child living with the party includes a sum for that party as custodian.”

Section 403.200(2) does not require a family court to make explicit findings on every relevant factor when setting the amount of maintenance.

Smith v. Smith · filed 2022-02-17(2)

True, the amended December Decree does not explicitly walk through an overt analysis of the factors listed in KRS 403.200(2), but precedent does not require the family court “to render explicit findings of fact as to each relevant KRS 403.200(2) factor.”

A court setting maintenance must consider the relevant statutory factors but need not make a specific finding on each one.

Stiegelmeyer v. Stiegelmeyer · filed 2022-07-15(2)

To determine the maintenance amount, the family court must consider the relevant KRS 403.200(2) factors but “the statute does not require the court to make specific findings of fact as to each relevant factor.” Id. at 118 (citing Drake v. Drake, 721 S.W.2d 728 (Ky. App. 1986)).

Section 403.200(2) directs courts setting maintenance to consider the recipient’s financial resources, age and health, the length of the marriage, and the marital standard of living.

Glenn Keith Greenfield, Sr. v. Donna Sue Wallen Greenfield (Now Donna Sue Wallen) · filed 2022-08-04(2)

The basis for the trial court’s award of maintenance was based on Donna’s lack of financial resources, her age, her health and limited income, the length of the marriage, and the standard of living established during the marriage. These findings reflect the statutory factors, and they are all supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 403.200 requires a court deciding maintenance to consider whether marital property provides for the applicant’s needs and to address the statute’s factors.

Jean v. Jean · filed 2024-11-01

KRS 403.200 (requiring a determination of whether marital property provides for one’s needs). The Family Court’s forthcoming maintenance analysis must address the factors in KRS 403.200.

Section 403.200(2) requires consideration of the parties’ resources and needs, including the time a spouse needs to gain education or training, when setting maintenance.

Romaine v. Jessica Rose Romaine · filed 2025-10-10(2)

The court properly utilized KRS 403.200 to enable Jessica to acquire the skills necessary to support herself in the current workforce so that she need not rely upon the maintenance from Robert indefinitely.

Section 403.200(2) calls for courts to consider the parties’ net income when assessing their financial resources for maintenance.

Yates v. Yates · filed 2022-04-28(2)

We agree that, in looking at the parties’ financial resources pursuant to KRS 403.200(2), the court should consider the parties’ net income, not gross income.

Section 403.200(2)(f) allows a court to consider whether the spouse asked to pay maintenance can meet their own needs while supporting the other spouse, and to give that factor substantial weight.

Smith v. Smith · filed 2022-11-09(2)(f)

In awarding maintenance, “[t]he ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance” is an important factor to be considered by the court. KRS 403.200(2)(f). ... Considering the amount of the debt and Jeffrey’s financial resources, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in prioritizing this factor and declining to award maintenance.

Section 403.200(2)(f) requires the court to consider the paying spouse’s ability to meet personal needs while paying maintenance.

Maginnis v. Ninamary Buba (Maginnis) · filed 2024-01-18(2)(f)

Rather, Maginnis argues that the Family Court relied on improper methods to calculate his income, thus reaching an incorrect conclusion regarding his ability to meet his own needs while also meeting Buba’s needs. KRS 403.200(2)(f). ... The Family Court further found that Maginnis has a surplus of $6,858 per month in excess of his reasonable expenses, and he is therefore able to pay maintenance to Buba. Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Family Court clearly erred by adopting that amount as Maginnis’s income.

Section 403.200(2)(f) requires a court setting maintenance to consider whether the paying spouse can meet his own needs while paying maintenance.

Beets v. Beets · filed 2023-11-29(2)(f)

Given these facts, the family court did not abuse its discretion in finding Andie was able to support himself while also paying maintenance under KRS 403.200(2)(f).

A court setting the amount and duration of maintenance must account for marital assets received by the spouse seeking maintenance.

Farrow v. Farrow · filed 2024-02-15(2)(a)

Consequently, on remand the family court must account for these sums and re-evaluate the amount and duration of maintenance awarded in light of its disposition of this marital asset.

For maintenance modification, cohabitation is a financial resource under subsection (2)(a) when it provides a substantial economic benefit that changes the recipient’s economic position.

Gallagher v. Gallagher · filed 2024-10-04(2)(a)

Under the second element, economic benefit, Combs specifies that maintenance cannot be reduced if the cohabitation does not provide a “substantial economic benefit” that changes the cohabitating spouse’s economic position. The trial court found that Jackie paid Rosemary $100 per week while he was staying with her to assist with her bills. An additional $100 per week does not rise to the level of a substantial economic benefit, especially in light of the fact that David was withholding $840 per month, or over $200 per week, in maintenance.

Section 403.200 bars consideration of marital fault when deciding entitlement to maintenance but allows it when setting the amount.

Chapman v. Chapman · filed 1973-05-18(1), (2)

What we have said is, briefly, fault is not to be considered in determining whether a spouse is entitled to maintenance but it may be considered insofar as the amount is concerned.

Section 403.200(2) directs maintenance decisions using relevant factors and does not permit a spouse's fault to increase the award beyond what the statute allows.

Platt v. Platt · filed 1987-04-24(2)

KRS 403.200 does not include “fault” anywhere as a factor to be considered when arriving at a just amount of maintenance. ... We decline to further disfigure the statute, against which Chapman is already guilty of mayhem, by holding that the party seeking maintenance may punitively use the fault of his or her spouse to extort an amount of maintenance greater than what the statute would legitimately allow.

Section 403.200 permits maintenance for either spouse after dissolution, subject to its statutory elements.

Cottrell v. Cottrell · filed 1973-11-23

Under KRS 403.200, enacted by the 1972 General Assembly, maintenance, which is analogous to what was formerly denominated alimony, may be granted to either spouse following a decree of dissolution of the marriage. ... Under KRS 403.200, the elements for the allowance of maintenance have not been judicially considered. ... He erred, however, in undertaking to preclude the appellant from litigation of the question of her entitlement of alimony.

Section 403.200(1) authorizes maintenance when a spouse lacks sufficient property for reasonable needs and cannot support themselves through appropriate employment.

Priddy v. Priddy · filed 1974-01-18(1)

We are of the opinion that Zelma’s first contention of error has merit. The evidence adduced at the trial indicates that after the sale of the jointly acquired property, when the lien is paid, she would lack sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs. It is also shown that she is unable to support herself through appropriate qualifications to seek employment outside the home. KRS 403.200(1). ... There was an abuse of discretion by the Chancellor’s failure to award maintenance.

Section 403.200 sets the standards courts use to determine the amount of maintenance.

Sharp v. Sharp · filed 1974-10-25

KRS 403.200 fixes the standards which guide the courts in fixing the amount of maintenance.

Section 403.200 permits a maintenance award that accounts for the duration of the marriage and the recipient’s employment prospects.

Callahan v. Callahan · filed 1979-03-23

The award of $25.00 per week for maintenance is consistent with the facts in this case and the directions of KRS 403.200. We cannot say that the decision of the trial judge was clearly erroneous when viewed in the light of the duration of the marriage and the availability of the appellee to find more lucrative employment.

Section 403.200 requires a court setting maintenance to consider its listed factors and the property assigned to the spouse.

Newman v. Newman · filed 1980-02-12

In the fixing of maintenance the trial court must take into consideration the assignment of property made pursuant to the provisions of KRS 403.190 and the factors delineated in KRS 403.200.

Section 403.200 sets the statutory prerequisites for an award of maintenance.

Calloway v. Calloway · filed 1986-04-11

The court found that appellant does not satisfy the statutory prerequisites for an award of maintenance. KRS 403.200. This finding is amply supported by the record. As the court’s finding denying maintenance is not clearly erroneous, it may not be disturbed.

Section 403.200 requires the court to apply its statutory guidelines and make specific findings when determining whether maintenance is warranted.

Wood v. Wood · filed 1986-10-10

Simply stated, the trial court failed to follow the statutory guidelines set forth in KRS 403.200 in denying the appellee an award of maintenance. As such, it is directed on remand of this action to consider the specific statutory language contained in KRS 403.200, and to issue specific findings of fact in determining whether an award of maintenance to the appellee is justified under the statute.

Section 403.200 directs courts to consider the parties’ income and other factors when deciding whether to award maintenance.

Cable v. Cable · filed 1987-06-05

However, since we feel certain this matter will probably be relitigated, we hold that based on the evidence of the parties’ income and the other considerations of KRS 403.200, the trial court was not clearly erroneous in refusing to award Lucille maintenance.

Section 403.200(1) governs whether the facts support an award of maintenance.

Schmitz v. Schmitz · filed 1990-09-21(1)

In the case at bar, the facts, as they existed at the time of the decree, simply do not support an award of maintenance to Kelley. KRS 403.200(1). The trial court was correct in so holding.

Section 403.200 requires a demonstrated need before a court may order maintenance and calls for an award that sustains the spouse’s marital standard of living.

John v. John · filed 1995-01-13

Under our statutory scheme, a court may not order one spouse to pay maintenance to the other unless the need for maintenance is clearly demonstrated. KRS 403.200. Rarely is it appropriate for a court to order lump-sum maintenance. Instead, it must award a sum to sustain the spouse at the standard of living obtained during the marriage.

Section 403.200 permits maintenance only when the spouse seeking it lacks sufficient property for reasonable needs and cannot support himself through appropriate employment according to the marital standard of living.

Casper v. Casper · filed 1974-05-10(1)(b)

In this respect we think a proper construction of KRS 403.200(1) is that maintenance may be awarded only after a finding that the spouse seeking maintenance (a) lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to him, to provide for his reasonable needs; and (b) is unable to support himself through appropriate employment according to the standard of living established during the marriage.

Section 403.200(1) requires both conditions in subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) to be met before maintenance may be awarded.

Inman v. Inman · filed 1979-02-23(1)

The statute requires that the conditions of both subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b), supra, be met in order for an award of maintenance to be appropriate. In the instant case, the circumstances described in subsection (1)(b) clearly do not exist. Thus the order of the trial court that Dr. Inman pay $100 a month in maintenance must be vacated.

Section 403.200(1) permits maintenance only when the requesting spouse lacks sufficient property for reasonable needs and cannot support himself or herself through appropriate employment.

Mosley v. Mosley · filed 1985-01-04(1)

KRS 403.200(1) provides that the trial court may grant maintenance to either spouse only if it finds the spouse seeking maintenance lacks sufficient property to provide for his or her reasonable needs and is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment. If either factor is satisfactorily met, maintenance need not be granted.

Section 403.200 requires a spouse seeking maintenance to lack sufficient property to meet reasonable needs and be unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment.

Poe v. Poe · filed 1986-03-28(1)(a)-(b)

As for Light, supra, its primary deficiency in treating nonvested military pensions as a circumstance justifying maintenance is the dual requirement of KRS 403.200(l)(a) and (b). A spouse seeking maintenance under those provisions must first lack sufficient property to meet his reasonable needs and be unable to support himself through appropriate employment, assuming child care responsibilities do not prevent outside employment. ... Maintenance, under KRS 403.200, rests upon the ability of a spouse to meet his or her own financial needs either through employment or the distribution of marital and nonmari-tal property.

Section 403.200(1) permits permanent maintenance only when the requesting spouse lacks sufficient property for reasonable needs and cannot support themself through appropriate employment.

Lampton v. Lampton · filed 1986-12-19(1)

Permanent maintenance is appropriate only where the court finds that the spouse seeking it (1) lacks sufficient property to provide for his or her reasonable needs, and (2) is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment. KRS 403.200(1); Mosley v. Mosley, Ky.App., 682 S.W.2d 462, 463 (1985).

Section 403.200 authorizes maintenance when a spouse lacks sufficient property to provide for reasonable needs and cannot otherwise support himself or herself.

Robbins v. Robbins · filed 1993-03-19

It is clear that Ms. Robbins is unable to support herself in accordance with the standard of living the parties enjoyed during the marriage, and that the property awarded to her is not sufficient to provide for her reasonable needs. Thus, an award of maintenance to her was justified. See KRS 403.200.

Section 403.200 governs entitlement to maintenance and its amount by considering economic need, relevant statutory factors, and fault.

Moss v. Moss · filed 1982-03-12(1)(a), (2)

Regarding maintenance under KRS 403.-200 and Chapman v. Chapman, Ky., 498 S.W.2d 134 (1973), the Circuit Court is charged with two separate decisions: ... For the determination of right fault has no bearing. The considerations as laid down in KRS 403.200(l)(a) are economic, primarily whether at the termination of the marriage he or she is in a position to account for his/her own reasonable needs. ... Once the right to maintenance is established, the amount is to be determined. In this aspect, and this aspect alone, fault may be considered. Under KRS 403.200(2) other relevant factors are the time necessary for education and training, the standard of living shared during the marriage, the duration of the marriage, and the ability of the other to pay. ... As noted supra KRS 403.200(2) outlines certain relevant factors to be considered by the Circuit Court. This list, however, is not exhaustive and has been supplemented through case interpretations to include additional factors such as fault. See Chapman v. Chapman, supra. The clear purpose is to preclude one whose misconduct led to the marital breakdown from continuing to retain the financial benefits of the union.

Section 403.200 permits maintenance when the requesting spouse lacks sufficient property and cannot support themself at the marital standard of living, with the court considering the parties' listed economic circumstances.

McGowan v. McGowan · filed 1983-12-30(1)(b), (2)(c), (2)(f)

Casper interpreted KRS 403.200(1)(b) to mean that an award of maintenance is appropriate when the spouse seeking it is unable to support him or herself according to the standard of living established during the marriage. Moreover, KRS 403.200(2) requires the court to consider not only "the standard of living established during the marriage," KRS 403.200(2)(c), but also "the ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance." KRS 403.200(2)(f).

Section 403.200 requires maintenance decisions to consider the parties’ property, resources, and circumstances.

Owens v. Owens · filed 1984-06-29(1)(a), (1)(b), and (2)

An award of maintenance must conform with KRS 403.200. Non-marital property and the party’s proportion of marital property must be awarded first because this is the property the court must consider in determining whether the party “[ljacks sufficient property ... to provide for his reasonable needs.” KRS 403.200(l)(a). ... This factor is not to be used in determining the division of marital property, but a factor in determining whether maintenance should be awarded. KRS 403.200(l)(b). The amount of maintenance to be awarded is determined by using the factors listed in KRS 403.200(2).

Section 403.200 requires a court to find a spouse's need and inability to self-support before awarding maintenance and to consider specified factors when setting its amount and duration.

Gentry v. Gentry · filed 1990-11-08(1), (2)

Before awarding maintenance to either party to the dissolution, the trial court must find that the party: (a) lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to him, to provide for his reasonable needs; and (b) is unable to support himself through appropriate employment or is the custodian of a child whose condition or circumstances make it appropriate that the custodian not be required to seek employment outside the home. KRS 403.200(1). ... In setting the amount and duration of maintenance, the trial court must consider the factors set out in KRS 403.200(2): .... (2) the maintenance order shall be in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just, and after considering all relevant factors including: (a) The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to him, and his ability to meet his needs independently, including the extent to which a provision for support of a child living with the party includes a sum for that party as custodian; (b) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment; (c) The standard of living established during the marriage; (d) The duration of the marriage; (e) The age, and the physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance; and (f) The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance.

Section 403.200 permits maintenance only if the requesting spouse lacks sufficient property for reasonable needs and cannot support himself through appropriate employment.

Smith v. Smith · filed 2006-02-10(1)

Maintenance is governed by KRS 403.200, which provides that maintenance may be awarded only if the court finds that the party seeking maintenance: “(a) Lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to him, to provide for his reasonable needs; and (b) Is unable to support himself through appropriate employment....” ... Therefore, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jim’s request for maintenance.

Section 403.200(1) requires a spouse seeking maintenance to lack sufficient property for reasonable needs and to be unable to support herself through appropriate employment.

Croft v. Croft · filed 2007-11-02(1)

When determining whether an award of maintenance is appropriate, KRS 403.200(1) requires the trial court to find that the spouse seeking maintenance: (1) lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to her, to provide for her reasonable needs; and (2) is unable to support herself through appropriate employment.

Section 403.200 requires a court to decide maintenance eligibility after dividing property and to consider the marital standard of living only when setting the amount and duration of an award.

McVicker v. McVicker · filed 2015-02-06(1), (2)

On remand, after the court has properly assigned and divided the marital and non-marital (if any) property, it must determine whether Cynthia is entitled to an award of maintenance considering the factors in KRS 403.200(1). If she is entitled to such an award, the court must then determine the amount and duration of maintenance to which she is entitled, considering the factors set forth in KRS 403.200(2), which includes the standard of living established during the marriage. The family court should not have considered this factor in determining whether Cynthia was entitled to maintenance; only if maintenance is found to be appropriate does the family court have to consider this factor.

Section 403.200(1) allows maintenance when the requesting spouse lacks sufficient property to meet reasonable needs and cannot support herself through appropriate employment.

Bootes v. Bootes · filed 2015-08-28(1)

Awards of maintenance are appropriate when the party requesting maintenance “[l]acks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to [her], to provide for [her] reasonable needs” and “[i]s unable to support [herself] through appropriate employment.” KRS 403.200(1). ... Given these factors, we do not believe the trial court abused its discretion in denying Michelle’s request for maintenance.

A spouse’s efforts to secure employment are not part of the statutory criteria for determining eligibility for maintenance.

Smith v. Smith · filed 2016-10-28(1)

As the family court pointed out and Amy argues, her efforts to secure employment are not a part of the statutory criteria for the court to consider whether an award of maintenance is warranted.

Section 403.200(1)(a) permits maintenance when a spouse’s property, including apportioned marital property, is insufficient to meet reasonable needs.

Byrd v. Byrd · filed 2020-08-13(1)(a)

Therefore, we do not believe that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Joanna did not possess sufficient property overall to provide for her reasonable needs without the aid of David’s maintenance payments.

Section 403.200(1) permits maintenance only when the requesting spouse lacks sufficient property for reasonable needs and cannot support themselves through appropriate employment.

Mayo v. Mayo · filed 2020-08-20(1)

As noted, to properly award maintenance under KRS 403.200, a court must find the spouse seeking maintenance (1) lacks sufficient property, including the marital property apportioned to him or her, to provide for his or her reasonable needs, and (2) is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment. ... The trial court found Dale’s income sufficient to pay his monthly expenses and properly take care of himself. Similarly, Dale was awarded sufficient property to provide for his reasonable needs.

Section 403.200 requires findings on maintenance eligibility, and the court may consider the lifestyle established during the marriage.

Bell v. Bell · filed 2021-03-18(1)

Under this statute, the court must first make relevant findings of fact and then determine maintenance considering those facts. ... The family court did not base maintenance only on the parties’ income and assets, but also on the lifestyle established during the marriage. Under the circumstances, we can find no clear error or abuse of discretion.

Section 403.200 allows maintenance when a spouse lacks sufficient property to meet reasonable needs and cannot support herself through appropriate employment; the court must consider whether the property is available to cover a budget shortfall.

Bradford v. Bradford · filed 2021-04-15(1)

A court may grant spousal maintenance if the spouse seeking maintenance lacks sufficient property, including apportioned marital property, to provide for his/her reasonable needs and is unable to support oneself through appropriate employment. KRS 403.200. ... As the court largely sustained Karen’s claimed expenses and did not find that her employment was inappropriate, for the court’s decision to be sound Karen would need adequate property to meet her substantial budgetary shortfall.

A spouse who can support herself through appropriate employment does not qualify for maintenance under Section 403.200(1).

Phelps v. Phelps · filed 2021-06-17(1)

Based on that particular finding, Roberta could not qualify for an award of maintenance under the provisions of KRS 403.200(1), and no further analysis was necessary.

Before awarding maintenance, a family court must make findings on both eligibility requirements in subsection (1); an award without those findings must be vacated.

Harmon Jr v. Harmon · filed 2021-08-05(1)

Accordingly, in the absence of such findings, we have no alternative but to conclude that the family court erred by failing to comply with KRS 403.200(1) in rendering its findings and conclusions.

Section 403.200(1) makes entitlement to maintenance depend on the property allocated to a spouse, so a maintenance award must be reconsidered when the underlying property award is reversed.

Jones v. Jones · filed 2008-02-01(1)

As entitlement and amount of maintenance are dependent upon the marital and nonmari-tal property allocated to the party, it is axiomatic that a maintenance award must also be vacated for reconsideration where the underlying property award was reversed on appeal. As we have reversed part of the family court’s property award to Lynn, the maintenance award must, likewise, be vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of the revised property award.

The court considers Section 403.200’s maintenance factors only after restoring each spouse’s nonmarital property interest.

Fehr v. Fehr · filed 2008-10-03

Only after it has restored each party their nonmarital interest are the factors delineated in KRS 403.200 and an award of maintenance, if any, appropriate.

Section 403.200 requires a proper division of marital property before the court determines entitlement to maintenance.

Ensor v. Ensor · filed 2013-07-26

The determination of entitlement to maintenance cannot be made until a proper division of marital property is completed.

Section 403.200 permits a court to impute income to a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed spouse when deciding entitlement to maintenance and its amount and duration.

McGregor v. McGregor · filed 2011-02-18

While a case of first impression, it is implicit in this statutory language that a court may impute income to a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed spouse to determine both the spouse’s entitlement to maintenance and the amount and duration of maintenance.

Section 403.200(1) governs eligibility for an initial maintenance award; failing to meet its criteria later does not by itself make an existing award unconscionable.

Holland v. Herzfeld III · filed 2020-10-01(1)

Holly’s assertion that John would not currently be entitled to maintenance under KRS 403.200(1) does not render his continued receipt of maintenance unconscionable.

Section 403.200(1)(b) permits a finding that a spouse cannot support herself through appropriate employment when her earnings are insufficient to meet her reasonable anticipated needs, even though she is employed.

Saville v. Saville · filed 2021-04-01(1)(b)

As for KRS 403.200(1)(b)’s requirement that the family court find that the spouse seeking maintenance show inability to support oneself through appropriate employment, this was satisfied by the family court’s finding that Tricia’s net monthly income was not sufficient to meet her anticipated monthly needs despite her employment. There is no dispute that Tricia was employed, and there was no finding of under-employment. Thus, the family court implicitly found that Tricia’s employment was appropriate. And as the family court specifically found that her net monthly income was insufficient to meet her anticipated monthly needs (which it did not find unreasonable), it implicitly found that she was unable to support herself through appropriate employment.

Section 403.200 requires a court to find that a spouse lacks sufficient property to meet reasonable needs and cannot support themselves through appropriate employment before awarding maintenance.

Gallagher v. Gallagher · filed 2022-02-10(1)

Under this statute, the court must first find that the spouse seeking maintenance lacks sufficient property, including marital property, to provide for his reasonable needs. ... Second, the court must find that the spouse is unable to support himself through appropriate employment according to the standard of living established during the marriage. ... Furthermore, we find that the trial court adequately considered the marital property awarded to Rosemary in determining her ability to meet her reasonable needs.

A spouse may qualify for maintenance despite receiving the marital home when it is heavily encumbered and the spouse has insufficient liquid assets to meet reasonable needs.

Sarin M. Shah v. Bhajana Sarin Shah · filed 2022-05-19(1)

Bhajana did receive the marital residence, but it was heavily encumbered with debt. Furthermore, she was left with almost no liquid assets as these had been dissipated by Sarin. The family court’s award of maintenance is founded on substantial evidence and will not be disturbed on appeal.

In deciding maintenance eligibility, a court must consider whether the spouse’s property can meet reasonable needs until retirement benefits become available.

Tonya Sherrie Hall v. Hall · filed 2022-06-09(1)

Accordingly, we hold that the court’s conclusion Tonya has sufficient assets3 to meet her reasonable needs until she is able to collect on her retirement is manifestly unjust and remand the matter for further consideration.

A spouse qualifies for maintenance when she lacks sufficient property for her reasonable needs and cannot support herself through appropriate employment at the marital standard of living.

Bernardo v. Bernardo · filed 2022-06-09(1)

Under this statute, the court must first find that the spouse seeking maintenance lacks sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs. KRS 403.200(1)(a). Second, the court must find that the spouse is unable to support herself through appropriate employment according to the standard of living established during the marriage. KRS 403.200(1)(b).

Section 403.200(1) requires a spouse seeking maintenance to lack sufficient property for reasonable needs and be unable to support herself through appropriate employment.

Alley v. Alley · filed 2022-09-08(1)

The family court abused its discretion because its analysis under KRS 403.200(1) does not support its decision to award Madelle maintenance. The statute requires the requesting spouse both lack sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs and is unable to support herself through appropriate employment.

A spouse qualifies for maintenance only if the court finds that the spouse lacks sufficient property for reasonable needs and cannot support herself through appropriate employment.

James Arthur Harmon, Jr. v. Harmon · filed 2023-05-25(1)

In this case, the family court clearly found that even after the division of marital property Wanda would not have sufficient property to provide for her needs. The family court, likewise, found it was almost impossible that Wanda could become employed given her age and her health status, thus precluding Wanda’s ability to support herself through appropriate employment. Therefore, we conclude the family court made the requisite findings of fact pursuant to KRS 403.200(1)(a) and (b) and did not abuse its discretion in determining that Wanda was entitled to maintenance.

Section 403.200(1) requires a spouse seeking maintenance to lack sufficient property for reasonable needs and be unable to support themselves through appropriate employment.

Kositzky v. Kositzky · filed 2023-07-20(1)

Based upon the marital property Sheryl received, including an approximation of income from Neil’s retirement accounts, we find no abuse of discretion in the family court’s determination that she was not entitled to an award of maintenance pursuant to KRS 403.200(1).

Maintenance eligibility depends on the requesting spouse’s property, reasonable needs, and ability to support herself through appropriate employment.

Bradley v. Bradley · filed 2023-09-07(1)

However, the Decree of Dissolution does not adequately consider Polly’s age and medical issues, her unlikely employability, her minimal social security, the testimony about the poor condition of her home, and her inability to provide for her reasonable needs. Additionally, the Decree of Dissolution, in denying maintenance, relied on Polly being able to support her reasonable needs with income received from the wells, but that well income expectation was not supported by substantial evidence. As such, the denial of maintenance requires further clarity – within and as a result of – a re-examination of the division of the marital estate.

Section 403.200(1) requires a court to consider whether a spouse lacks sufficient property for reasonable needs and cannot support themselves through appropriate employment before awarding maintenance.

Pergrem v. Pergrem · filed 2024-01-11(1)

A court must first determine whether a spouse is entitled to maintenance by considering whether that spouse lacks sufficient property to provide for his or her reasonable needs and is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment.

Section 403.200(1) permits maintenance only when the spouse lacks sufficient property to meet reasonable needs and cannot support themself through appropriate employment or qualifies under its child-custody provision.

Fearer v. Fearer · filed 2024-05-02(1)

An award of maintenance is governed by KRS 403.200, the application of which “requires the family court to engage in a two-step process prior to granting a party maintenance. First, the family court must determine whether the party seeking maintenance is entitled to it by ascertaining whether that party is able to meet his or her reasonable needs.” Shafizadeh v. Shafizadeh, 444 S.W.3d 437, 446 (Ky. App. 2012). ... Thus, the circuit court’s decision to deny maintenance was not arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by legal principles.

Section 403.200(1) requires a spouse seeking maintenance to show both insufficient property to meet reasonable needs and an inability to support themselves through appropriate employment.

Milliner v. Milliner · filed 2024-07-10(1)

To be entitled to maintenance, Allison had to establish, pursuant to KRS 403.200(1), that she lacked sufficient property – including marital property apportioned to her – to provide for her reasonable needs AND that she was unable to support herself through appropriate employment.

Section 403.200(1) permits maintenance only when the requesting spouse lacks sufficient property for reasonable needs and cannot support themselves through appropriate employment.

Amber Henson v. Henson · filed 2025-05-23(1)

Under KRS 403.200(1), a court may grant maintenance only if it finds that the requesting spouse: (a) lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to them, to provide for their reasonable needs; and (b) is unable to support themselves through appropriate employment.

Section 403.200(1) allows maintenance only if the requesting spouse lacks sufficient property for reasonable needs and cannot support themselves through appropriate employment.

Portis v. Portis · filed 2026-02-13(1)(a) and (b)

If either factor is not met, the circuit court may not award maintenance. ... Therefore, in light of the requirements of KRS 403.200(1)(a) and (b), we cannot say it was an abuse of discretion of the trial court to not award ... maintenance to Darrell.

Section 403.200 permits a court to consider the marital standard of living when assessing a spouse’s reasonable needs for maintenance.

Hall v. Heather Leigh Hall (Fannin) · filed 2022-07-21(1) and (2)

In determining maintenance, KRS 403.200(1) and (2) both permit the court to consider the standard of living established during the marriage as a factor in assessing a spouse’s “reasonable needs.”

Section 403.200 excludes expenses for adult children from a spouse’s necessary living expenses when determining maintenance.

Thielmeier v. Thielmeier · filed 2022-12-14(1)(a)

Even if such expenses were part of the parties’ standard of living during the marriage, spousal maintenance only contemplates necessary living expenses for the spouse, not the spouse’s adult children.

In assessing reasonable needs under Section 403.200(1), the decree and a later modification order may be read together to determine whether the findings support maintenance.

Constante v. King · filed 2026-03-13(1)

As previously stated, Husband contends that the family court erred by not making findings concerning Wife’s “reasonable needs” as a threshold matter pursuant to KRS 403.200(1). ... Taking the Decree and the post-Decree modification order in concert, we believe that the court made sufficient findings in assessing open-ended maintenance based on Wife’s reasonable needs and Husband’s income.

Appropriate employment is assessed against the standard of living established during the marriage.

Peterson v. Peterson · filed 2022-12-21(1)(b)

Additionally, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Stephanie could not support herself through appropriate employment “according to the standard of living established during the marriage.”

Section 403.200 permits a court to impute income to a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed spouse when determining entitlement to maintenance and its amount and duration.

Sharpe v. Felix H. Sharpe, II · filed 2023-04-27

This Court rejected that argument in McGregor v. McGregor, 334 S.W.3d 113, 117 (Ky. App. 2011), and we find no reason to disagree with this holding: ... While a case of first impression, it is implicit in this statutory language that a court may impute income to a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed spouse to determine both the spouse’s entitlement to maintenance and the amount and duration of maintenance.

Section 403.200(1) governs initial maintenance eligibility; a court deciding whether to modify an award need not reweigh its factors.

Hoffman v. Gloria Hoffman (Now Thomas) · filed 2023-12-07(1)

When addressing the 2013 Motion, the family court was not required to reweigh the KRS 403.200(1) factors, it was simply required to determine whether substantial and continuing changes had rendered the original award unconscionable.

Section 403.200 permits a court to impute income to a voluntarily underemployed maintenance payor based on earning capacity when setting maintenance.

Bryant v. Bryant · filed 2024-06-13(2)

This makes logical sense because the maintenance statute requires the family court to consider the payor’s ability to meet his reasonable needs in relation to the needs of the payee. If the payor spouse’s current income is not consistent with his earning capacity, especially as demonstrated by his past salary, the family court should be able to impute income to the payor.

A spouse with sufficient property to meet reasonable needs does not qualify for maintenance under KRS 403.200(1).

White v. White · filed 2025-04-25(1)(a)

It determined that Appellant’s estimated budget, his income from employment, and his marital assets award were sufficient to provide for his reasonable needs per KRS 403.200(1). Additionally, the court determined that Appellant was voluntarily underemployed. This latter finding, however, was not the basis for the court’s denial of support in favor of Appellant, as it already determined that he had sufficient property to provide for his reasonable needs. ... These findings are supported by the record and therefore are not arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, nor unsupported by sound legal principles.

Section 403.200 governs the establishment of maintenance, not the modification of an existing award.

Walker v. Walker · filed 2026-01-02

He cites ... KRS 403.200, which again, is the statute governing the establishment of maintenance, not the modification of maintenance.

Section 403.200(2) requires maintenance to be set in a just amount and period after considering relevant factors.

Farmer v. Farmer · filed 1974-02-15(2)

KRS 403.-200(2) controls the allowance of maintenance. ... Until there is an adjudication of entitlement to marital property as is hereinafter directed, the adequacy of Jane’s award of maintenance cannot be determined. It should be reexamined by the chancellor in the light of that adjudication.

Section 403.200(2)(a) and (b) require a spouse seeking maintenance to lack sufficient property for reasonable needs and to be unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment.

Drake v. Drake · filed 1986-11-21(2)(a) and (b)

Kentucky law is clear that in order for an award of maintenance to be proper, the elements of both KRS 403.200(2)(a) and (b) must be established. In other words, there must first be a finding that the spouse seeking maintenance lacks sufficient property, including marital property, to provide for his reasonable needs. Secondly, that spouse must be unable to support himself through appropriate employment according to the standard of living established during the marriage.

Section 403.200(2) requires courts setting the duration of maintenance to consider whether the receiving spouse will realistically be self-sufficient when the award ends.

Frost v. Frost · filed 1979-05-11(2)

KRS 403.200(2) supra, directs trial courts, in deciding the amount and duration of a maintenance award, to consider all relevant factors, specifically including the ability of the party seeking maintenance to meet his needs independently, the duration of the marriage, and the age of the party seeking maintenance. ... We would add that we cannot approve, as a general proposition, the practice of granting maintenance for a set term of years. Such an approach may be valid when the party receiving maintenance will clearly be self-sufficient at the end of that period, but not before.

Section 403.200(2) requires the court to consider all relevant factors when setting the amount and duration of maintenance.

Leveck v. Leveck · filed 1981-04-10(2)

KRS 403.200(2) states that the court, after considering all relevant factors, shall determine the amount and duration of maintenance.

Section 403.200(2) directs maintenance decisions by considering financial resources, established standard of living, marriage duration, and ability to pay.

Combs v. Combs · filed 1981-09-04(2)

We are aware that the fixing of maintenance is within the discretion of the trial court. See KRS 403.200(2), and Browning v. Browning, Ky.App., 551 S.W.2d 823 (1979). However, it is equally clear that the award may be reversed when, as here, there is a clear abuse of that discretion. The disparity in financial position alone, under the circumstances of this 30-year marriage and the working of the wife, indicates an abuse of discretion. The elements contained in KRS 403.200(2), such as financial resources of the wife, standard of living established, duration of the marriage and ability of the husband, who got along well on $30,000 per year and now makes $51,000, to meet his own needs while meeting those of his wife, all point out the abuse.

Section 403.200 requires consideration of specified factors when deciding whether maintenance should be awarded and, if so, its amount and duration.

Hollon v. Hollon · filed 1981-11-24

Moreover, we do not think that the trial judge adequately complied with the standards for awarding maintenance found in KRS 403.200. The statute requires that certain factors be considered when determining whether maintenance should be granted and, if it is granted, in what amount and for what duration. The trial judge, in his findings of fact, merely stated that the wife presently was unable to work and the husband was working. Like the trial court's property distribution decree, the findings of fact are not complete and specific enough to allow this court to pass upon the propriety of the maintenance award, nor do they allow us to know whether the trial judge complied with the statute's mandatory provisions.

Section 403.200 requires maintenance decisions to consider marital property and the spouse’s ability to support herself through appropriate employment, including the demands of caring for a child.

Richie v. Richie · filed 1980-03-07(1)(a), (b)

Regarding the maintenance, specific statutory authority exists in enabling the trier of fact to determine the amount and circumstances under which maintenance is appropriate. KRS 403.200 et seq. The trier of fact must look to the amount of marital property awarded to the spouse seeking maintenance, and the spouse’s ability to support herself through appropriate employment. A spouse’s ability to seek appropriate employment may be affected by the demands of an infant child, or a child who needs constant care or supervision. KRS 403.200(l)(a), (b). ... With this we agree. In light of the evidence, we do not believe an open-ended award is justified. ... Therefore, we direct the trial court to make further findings of fact as to when the appellee can begin work outside her home. The trial court is to specify in its findings of fact how long the award of maintenance should continue.

Section 403.200 permits an appropriate maintenance award to address inequity when VA disability benefits cannot be divided as marital property.

Davis v. Davis · filed 1989-09-28

Furthermore, if an inequity arises in an individual case, the trial court can resolve the problem according to our statutes by making an appropriate award of spousal support and/or marital property. KRS 403.190, KRS 403.200.

Section 403.200 permits maintenance when the requesting spouse lacks sufficient property for reasonable needs and cannot support himself or herself through appropriate employment, subject to the trial court’s discretion.

Calloway v. Calloway · filed 1992-06-12

The awarding of maintenance under KRS 403.200 is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. ... Though she will receive a portion of the marital assets, the lower court did not err in concluding that she is currently unable to provide for her reasonable needs and the needs of the couple’s unemancipated minor. We will not disturb an award of maintenance unless it is clearly erroneous.

Section 403.200 permits maintenance based on a spouse's insufficient property and inability to support himself or herself through appropriate employment, with the marital standard of living considered in setting the award.

Lovett v. Lovett · filed 1985-04-11(1)(b), (2)(c)

It is our opinion that the problem is best solved by application of our existing statutory and case law and treating the professional degree and license as relevant factors to be considered in the standard of living established during the marriage, awarding maintenance based thereon. ... It is the holding of this court that a professional degree and a license to practice are relevant factors to be considered by the trial court in its determination of the standard of living established during the marriage, both as this standard relates to the ability of the non-professional spouse to support himself/herself and as it relates to the amount and period of time of the maintenance.

Subsection (2)(a)-(f) requires the trial court to consider specified factors when setting the amount and duration of maintenance.

Robinette v. Robinette · filed 1987-07-24(2)(a)-(f)

As in the Carter case, the trial court regrettably made no specific findings in reference to the factors delineated in KRS 403.200(2)(a)-(f), those elements it must consider in setting the amount and duration of maintenance.

Section 403.200 permits a court setting the amount of maintenance to consider the paying spouse’s entire estate, including inherited property.

Roberts v. Roberts · filed 1988-02-05(2)

The statute does not expressly or by inference exclude inherited, nonmarital property from consideration in determining the amount of maintenance to be paid. Rather, in making this determination, the statute directs the court to consider “all relevant factors” including “ability” of the spouse paying maintenance to meet his or her own needs while meeting those of the spouse receiving maintenance. It seems reasonable to conclude that one major factor the court may consider is the total estate of the paying spouse, regardless of its source, since the ability of the paying spouse to support himself arises from all the property he has.

Section 403.200(2) requires courts setting the amount and duration of maintenance to consider the parties’ financial resources, including property awarded to the spouse seeking maintenance.

Low v. Low · filed 1989-10-19(2)

Upon a determination that the spouse seeking maintenance qualifies for such an award under KRS 403.200(1), the determination of amount and duration is governed by section (2) of the statute which requires consideration of all the financial resources of the parties.

Subsection (2)(c) makes the standard of living established during the marriage a factor in awarding maintenance.

Drake v. Drake · filed 1991-01-25(2)(c)

The standard of living established during the marriage is a factor to be considered in awarding maintenance. KRS 403.200(2)(c).

Section 403.200(1)'s maintenance entitlement test must be applied against the standard of living established during the marriage.

Leitsch v. Leitsch · filed 1992-10-16(1)

It has long been the law in this jurisdiction that the test to determine entitlement to maintenance set out in KRS 403.200(1) is not absolute but must be applied against the standard of living established during the marriage.

Section 403.200(2) gives the trial court discretion over the duration of maintenance, but an award extending past the recipient’s retirement age was an abuse of discretion under these circumstances.

Weldon v. Weldon · filed 1997-10-10(2)

Nevertheless, we believe that by approving the DRC report, the trial judge absolutely abused his discretion by awarding maintenance to Holly past her retirement age of 65.

Section 403.200(2) requires the court to consider the listed factors before setting the amount and duration of maintenance.

Gomez v. Gomez · filed 2005-07-08(2)(a)-(f)

The court is required to consider the factors listed in KRS 403.200(2)(a)-(f) before ordering the amount and duration of maintenance.

Section 403.200(2) requires findings on disability and future employability when those issues affect the duration of maintenance.

Massey v. Massey · filed 2006-09-01(2)

In this regard, the family court’s findings do not comport with KRS 403.200(2) and, thus, the court abused its discretion in awarding maintenance for a term of five years absent specific findings on the issues of Lisa’s disability and future employability.

Section 403.200(2) requires courts to consider the marital standard of living, but an emancipated child’s anticipated college expenses cannot justify extending the duration of maintenance.

Bailey v. Bailey · filed 2008-02-15(2)

The “standard of living established during the marriage” is one of the many factors that a trial court must consider in making a maintenance award. KRS 403.200(2). ... The rationale of Atwood requires that we hold that the duration of a maintenance award can no more be based on the college expenses of an emancipated child than can the monthly amount.

Section 403.200 requires the court to consider the parties’ incomes and a paying spouse’s continued benefit from partnership property when setting the amount and duration of maintenance.

Gripshover v. Gripshover · filed 2008-02-21(2)

While we cannot and do not say that the trial court’s original maintenance award amounted to an abuse of discretion, our ruling that the parties’ incomes must be redetermined and our clarification of the fact that George’s continued benefit from the partnership realty is a factor bearing on the maintenance determination change the landscape enough to require that the maintenance award be revisited.

Section 403.200(2) gives the trial court discretion to set a just amount and duration of maintenance after considering all relevant factors.

Stipp v. Charles · filed 2009-07-02(2)

Under KRS 403.200, the amount and duration of maintenance is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. ... We cannot say that the family court abused its discretion nor did it err as a matter of law as to the amount or duration of the maintenance award.

Section 403.200(2) requires courts setting the amount and duration of maintenance to consider relevant factors, including the time needed for education or job training.

Brooks v. Brooks · filed 2011-06-24(2)

Upon considering the factors set forth in KRS 403.200, the court determined that two and a half years of maintenance would allow Yolanda sufficient time to obtain a GED and job training. Based on our review of the record, we are unable to say the trial court’s award of maintenance in this instance was an abuse of its discretion.

Section 403.200 requires courts to consider statutory factors when setting the amount and duration of maintenance.

Brosnan v. Brosnan · filed 2012-02-03(2)

As revealed by our discussion of the issues presented by Timothy, the family court considered the factors set forth in KRS 403.200 when considering the amount and duration of the award. We conclude there was no abuse of discretion.

Section 403.200(2) requires the family court to consider the listed factors when setting the amount and duration of maintenance.

Shafizadeh v. Shafizadeh · filed 2012-12-14(2)

Second, if the family court concludes maintenance is warranted, the family court must then establish the amount and duration of the maintenance award by considering several factors set forth in KRS 403.200(2).

Section 403.200(2) leaves the amount and duration of maintenance to the trial court’s discretion, guided by the listed factors.

Maclean v. Middleton · filed 2014-01-03(2)

Furthermore, once the trial court finds that maintenance is appropriate, the amount and duration of maintenance is left to the sound discretion of the trial court based on the factors set out in KRS 402.200(2)(a)-(f). ... Given the trial court’s findings, we find no abuse of discretion in the amount or duration of its award of maintenance to Mac-lean.

Section 403.200(2) requires courts to consider relevant factors, including the parties’ financial circumstances and the recipient’s ability to work, when setting maintenance.

Nalley v. Nalley · filed 2020-09-03(2)

The circuit court’s decision to limit the amount of maintenance to $1,000.00 per month is arbitrary considering the factors enumerated in KRS 403.200, particularly considering the gross disparity in income between the parties and, as the circuit court found, “[Patricia] is not capable of working.”

Section 403.200(2) requires the amount and duration of maintenance to reflect the relevant evidence, including the recipient’s needs and the paying spouse’s ability to pay.

Naramore v. Naramore · filed 2020-09-10(2)

However, leaving Valarie with a shortfall of over $2,000.00 a month is unconscionable and a clear abuse of discretion. ... Without such evidence, the circuit court’s order to stop all maintenance when Valarie was “of the age to receive Social Security” was arbitrary.

Section 403.200(2) permits maintenance to continue past retirement age when the recipient is unlikely to have enough income to meet her reasonable needs.

Neal v. Neal · filed 2021-05-13(2)

Thus, unlike the parties in Weldon, the record does not support a conclusion that Tonya’s and Kevin’s income levels will be more equal at retirement age obviating the need for Tonya to receive any further maintenance from Kevin. ... In light of the record, we cannot conclude that the family court abused its discretion by failing to terminate Tonya’s maintenance when the parties reach retirement age.

Section 403.200 permits maintenance to support a spouse who cannot presently support herself while completing education needed for employment.

Beckner v. Beckner · filed 1995-06-23

The determination of whether to award maintenance is highly discretionary with the trial court after its consideration of the dictates of KRS 403.200. ... Under these circumstances, we hold the trial court erred in failing to award Kimberly a sum sufficient to sustain herself while completing her degree.

Section 403.200 permits a trial court, within its discretion, to make a maintenance award retroactive to the date the spouse filed exceptions to the domestic relations commissioner’s report.

Higbee v. Higbee · filed 2002-11-21

The circuit court having acted within its discretion in ordering maintenance payable effective January 11, 1991, we reverse ... and reinstate the opinion and order of the Meade Circuit Court.

Section 403.200 treats maintenance as a means of helping a dependent spouse become financially self-sufficient.

Daunhauer v. Daunhauer · filed 2009-09-04

The most appropriate reason for such modification, and that anticipated by the policy behind KRS 403.200, is the ability of Elaine, through rehabilitation, to live independently of maintenance.

Section 403.200 permits permanent maintenance when the statutory factors support the spouse’s need and the award’s amount and duration.

Hollis v. Hollis · filed 2021-09-02

Because the family court’s findings concerning the KRS 403.200 factors are supported by evidence in the record and adduced at the hearing, we find absolutely no basis upon which we might disturb its conclusion concerning Kelly’s entitlement to permanent maintenance in the amount of $1000 per month.

Section 403.200(2) allows the court to consider a spouse’s ability to earn part-time income, marital property award, and access to retirement benefits when setting the amount and duration of maintenance.

Thielmeier v. Thielmeier · filed 2021-09-09(2)

The trial court considered the maintenance factors listed in KRS 403.200(1) and (2). ... We do not believe this amount was an abuse of discretion. The court considered the required statutory factors, Appellant’s ability to supplement her income with a part-time job, and the significant amount of marital property she will retain after the divorce. ... We find no abuse of discretion as to the duration of the maintenance award.

Section 403.200(2) requires courts to consider relevant factors when setting the amount and duration of maintenance.

Jewell B. Mason v. Mason · filed 2022-02-17(2)

Based upon our review of the record below, we are simply unable to conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion by awarding Kathy permanent maintenance of $1,500 per month. The circuit court engaged in a thorough analysis and considered the appropriate factors set forth in KRS 403.200.

Section 403.200(2) requires courts to consider the statutory factors when setting the amount of maintenance, without prescribing a mathematical formula.

Melo v. Emma Mead Melo · filed 2022-03-31(2)

However, Kentucky courts do not apply a mathematical formula in determining the amount of maintenance. ... The only requirement is that the trial court consider the statutory factors in KRS 403.200(2).

Section 403.200(2) does not support limiting maintenance to eight years when the recipient’s worsening health and poor prognosis provide no reasonable basis to expect she can support herself through employment by then.

Laure Ryan (Formley Known as Laure Whiteley) v. James Whiteley, Jr. · filed 2022-10-06(2)

Given the medical evidence and the circuit court’s findings that Appellant’s condition is worsening and her prognosis is poor, and in light of the factors set out in KRS 403.200 and the Kentucky Supreme Court’s application of those factors in Powell, it is unreasonable per English to limit the award of maintenance to 8 years.

Section 403.200(2) directs courts to consider its listed factors when setting a just amount and duration of maintenance; courts may reduce claimed expenses that lack evidentiary support.

Goodwin v. Goodwin · filed 2022-11-09(2)

Across each expense category, the trial court properly considered the factors provided by KRS 403.200(2) and did not abuse its discretion in making the reductions which Amy contests.

Section 403.200(2) requires courts to consider all relevant factors when setting the amount and duration of maintenance.

Ferguson v. Chad Toy Ferguson · filed 2023-05-04(2)

However, on remand, the court shall enter an order of maintenance in an amount and duration that considers all factors of KRS 403.200(2).

Section 403.200(2) permits a twelve-month maintenance award when the court considers the spouse’s circumstances and substantial evidence supports that duration.

Patton v. Patton · filed 2023-08-17(2)

It was Julia’s wish to keep the farm despite its high cost of maintaining, and she had the two years during separation plus an additional year of maintenance to understand the expenses involved. The circuit court took her testimony and the evidence presented by both parties in its award of twelve months’ maintenance. The circuit court’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 403.200(2) allows a maintenance award based on factors including the recipient’s financial resources, age and income, the length of the marriage, and the standard of living established during the marriage.

Bowers v. Bethany A. Bowers · filed 2024-02-08(2)

In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, following the final hearing in June 2022, the family court meticulously examined the evidence considering the KRS 403.200 factors and awarded Wife maintenance based on Wife’s lack of financial resources, her age, limited income, the length of the marriage, and the standard of living established during the marriage. These findings reflect the statutory factors, and they are all supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 403.200(2) requires courts to consider all relevant factors when setting maintenance, including factors beyond those listed in the statute, such as the parties’ relative wages.

O'Keefe v. O'Keefe · filed 2024-03-21(2)

Further, as the statute plainly states, the family court was required to consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to, those the statute furnishes. Therefore, it was not contrary to law for the family court to have considered the parties’ relative wages during the marriage.

Section 403.200 limits maintenance to an amount needed to supplement the recipient’s resources and meet reasonable needs.

Mattingly v. Mattingly · filed 2024-06-20(2)(a)

And we agree with Bas that Luanne was not entitled to an amount of maintenance greatly exceeding the amount the trial court found that Luanne needed to supplement the income she would already receive to meet her reasonable needs.

Section 403.200(2) permits a court to set the amount and duration of maintenance, including gradual reductions, based on the recipient’s needs and ability to return to work.

Aoife Shah v. Shah · filed 2024-11-01(2)

If a trial court determines that a spouse is entitled to receive maintenance, it looks to the factors listed in KRS 403.200(2) to determine the amount and duration of maintenance payments. ... Accordingly, the family court did not abuse its discretion in amount, duration, or gradual reduction in Aoife’s maintenance payments.

Section 403.200(2) leaves the amount and duration of maintenance to the trial court’s discretion after it considers the relevant factors.

Dall v. Dall · filed 2024-12-13(2)

The amount and duration of maintenance is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Russell v. Russell, 878 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Ky. App. 1994). We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in the amount or duration of maintenance awarded to Roger.

Section 403.200(2) requires courts setting the amount and duration of maintenance to consider all relevant factors, including the spouses’ financial resources and ability to meet their needs.

Carmine Salerno v. Salerno · filed 2026-05-08(2)

The family court properly considered several factors when awarding maintenance, including those delineated in KRS 403.200(2).

Section 403.200(2)(c) allows a court to consider retirement savings as part of the marital standard of living when setting maintenance.

Tammara Lea Stricklett v. Stricklett · filed 2022-11-09(2)(c)

It is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to determine saving for retirement was a factor in the parties’ pre-dissolution lifestyle under KRS 403.200(2)(c) and for the court to use this as the basis for awarding Tammara additional maintenance funds.

Section 403.200(2) permits open-ended maintenance when the court considers the applicable factors, including caregiving obligations and earning capacity.

Heekin v. Heekin · filed 2023-06-29(2)

Although Husband disagrees with these findings, he has not shown that they are clearly erroneous or fail to consider the applicable factors of KRS 403.200(2). The Family Court also properly noted that its award of maintenance is modifiable upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances. As a result, we cannot find that the Family Court’s award of prospective, permanent, open-ended maintenance constituted an abuse of its discretion. Therefore, we affirm this portion of the maintenance award.

Section 403.200(2)(c) requires courts to consider the parties’ standard of living during the marriage when determining maintenance.

Schick v. Brown · filed 2024-03-07(2)(c)

KRS 403.200(2)(c) specifically directs the family court to consider the parties’ standard of living during the marriage.

Section 403.200(1) permits a separate maintenance action after dissolution when a spouse was not subject to the divorce court’s jurisdiction; the court cannot deny that spouse maintenance in the original action.

Gaines v. Gaines · filed 1978-05-26(1)

Both KRS 403.190(1) concerning disposition of property and KRS 403.200(1) dealing with maintenance recognize separate actions for both subsequent to a dissolution action where one spouse was not subject to the jurisdiction of the court at the time of the original divorce proceedings. ... Based upon these principles, we must reverse so much of the judgment as denies Amanda maintenance and makes disposition of any chattels not within the jurisdiction of the court or orders appellant to return such personalty.

A court reviewing agreed maintenance for unconscionability may use Section 403.200’s factors but need not apply them.

Mays v. Mays · filed 2018-02-23

Similarly, the family court is empowered to ratify and adopt an agreement setting forth maintenance which, on its face, appears excessive or unnecessary in light of the statutory guidelines. See KRS 403.200 (identifying standards for granting and calculating maintenance). We see nothing in our jurisprudence that requires a family court to consider the statutory factors when reviewing a maintenance provision contained in a separation agreement, though it is certainly permitted to use the statutory guidelines as a tool in measuring the conscionability of a maintenance obligation.

Section 403.200 does not require a finding about a spouse’s reasonable needs when the court finds that the spouse can support herself through appropriate employment.

Graham v. Graham · filed 1980-02-29(1)(a)

There appears to be no requirement under the statute for the trial court to make a finding as to the wife’s reasonable needs if it finds that she is able to support herself through appropriate employment.

Section 403.200 requires a finding about a spouse’s ability to support herself through appropriate employment before maintenance is awarded.

Cochran v. Cochran · filed 1988-03-11(1)(b)

However, we remand the issue of maintenance to the trial court for it to reconsider whether maintenance should be awarded after making a finding on the question of appellee’s ability to support herself through appropriate employment under KRS 403.200(l)(b). The court failed to make this statutorily required finding.

Section 403.200 requires the trial court to make relevant findings of fact and exercise discretion in deciding maintenance based on those facts.

Perrine v. Christine · filed 1992-05-14

Under this statute, the trial court has dual responsibilities: one, to make relevant findings of fact; and two, to exercise its discretion in making a determination on maintenance in light of those facts.

Section 403.200 requires findings supported by substantial evidence before a court may award maintenance.

Wattenberger v. Wattenberger · filed 2019-05-03(1)

Additionally, it is unclear whether the circuit court's consideration of Flora's "reasonable needs" ( KRS 403.200(1)(a) ) included her caring for the parties' adult son and his family (his wife and two children) as well as a cell phone plan that covered those two adults and Flora's mother. The record lacks substantial evidence to support the circuit court's award of maintenance to Flora, and the matter must be remanded for further findings pursuant to KRS 403.200.

Section 403.200(1) requires specific findings about a party’s property and ability to support herself when deciding maintenance.

Hays v. Larry Bracken Hays · filed 2020-08-27(1)

The family court’s determination on maintenance must be supported by specific findings under KRS 403.200(1).

Section 403.200(2) gives the trial court discretion to award maintenance after applying the statutory factors to the spouses’ circumstances.

Leveridge v. Leveridge · filed 1999-08-26(2)

The decision to grant or deny a maintenance award lies within a trial court’s sound discretion as it applies the governing factors of KRS 403.200 to the parties’ circumstances upon dissolution of marriage.

Section 403.200 requires the court to consider the statutory factors when deciding maintenance, but does not itself require findings of fact.

Anderson v. Johnson · filed 2011-09-22

The statute construed in that simply does not require a trial court to make such findings — only that it “consider” a non-exhaustive list of factors in reaching its ultimate conclusions of law. See KRS 403.190 & .200 No factual findings are required under the statute. Instead, the findings requirement comes from CR 52.01.

Section 403.200(1)(b) requires the court to determine whether a spouse seeking maintenance can support herself through appropriate employment; an order denying maintenance must contain findings on that issue.

Hanna Wright v. Wright · filed 2021-10-14(1)(b)

Based on our review, the circuit court’s order fails on its face to comply with KRS 403.200(1)(b) by not ascertaining whether Hanna had the ability to support herself through appropriate employment.

Section 403.200(1) requires findings that the recipient lacks sufficient property to meet reasonable needs and cannot support themselves through appropriate employment before a court may consider maintenance under subsection (2).

O'Keefe v. O'Keefe · filed 2022-03-03(1)

As stated in Wattenberger v. Wattenberger, 577 S.W.3d 786, 787-88 (Ky. App. 2019), “the threshold conditions of KRS 403.200(1) must be met before a circuit court can legally consider the factors enumerated in KRS 403.200(2)(a)- (f).” As such, this Court must vacate and remand the matter to enable the trial court to make the requisite findings.

KRS 403.200 requires financial findings to resolve a maintenance request, and evidence of a spouse’s later income and assets may be necessary for those findings.

Micquel Brown v. Jamon Brown · filed 2023-06-08

Furthermore, information about Jamon’s post-January 2018 financial matters (including income and assets) was necessary to make the findings required by statutes to resolve other matters including child support, KRS 403.211; costs and attorney fees, KRS 403.220; and Micquel’s request for maintenance, KRS 403.200.