## Facts

- Albert W. Barber III and Elizabeth D. Bradley, both attorneys, married in 2004 and later divorced in Kentucky.
- During the marriage, they decided to build a new home designed to meet family needs, including accommodations related to Bradley’s disability.
- Barber’s parents provided Barber $100,000 (father) and $146,000 (mother); checks were payable to Barber and described as gifts or inheritance advancements.
- Barber deposited those funds into an account solely in his name.
- Bradley testified she insisted any new home be “half hers,” and Barber repeatedly assured her her name would be on the deed.
- The home was completed in 2008 (about $547,000); title was taken in both parties’ names jointly with right of survivorship, and both were obligated on the mortgage.
- In the divorce, Barber claimed the parental funds were nonmarital gifts to him, so the corresponding portion of home equity should be set aside to him as nonmarital property.
- The trial court classified the home equity as marital and classified all household goods and furnishings as marital, ordering the personal property divided “by lot” (random drawing).

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by classifying the equity in the marital residence as marital property despite Barber’s claimed nonmarital contributions from parental gifts.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by (a) classifying all household goods and furnishings as marital property and (b) dividing them by random drawing.

## Decision

- Affirmed the classification of the residence equity as marital property.
- Reversed the blanket classification of all household goods and furnishings as marital property.
- Reversed the order dividing household goods and furnishings by random drawing.
- Remanded for proper classification and equitable division of the household goods and furnishings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Property acquired during marriage is generally presumed marital; a spouse claiming a nonmarital interest must trace the nonmarital contribution and show it retained its nonmarital character.
- A trial court may find that an otherwise nonmarital contribution has been gifted to, commingled with, or transmuted into the marital estate based on the parties’ intent and conduct, including joint titling and credibility findings.
- Appellate review of marital/nonmarital classification and property division is deferential; reversal requires an abuse of discretion or clearly erroneous factual findings.
- A court must meaningfully classify personal property as marital or nonmarital rather than labeling all items marital without analysis.
- Equitable distribution requires an allocation method grounded in fairness and the statutory framework; a lottery-style division of personal property can constitute an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s determination that the parties treated the residence as a joint marital asset despite parental funds traced to Barber, but it required a non-mechanical approach to personal property by rejecting the blanket marital classification and random division of household goods and furnishings and remanding for proper classification and equitable distribution.


Barber v. Bradley, 505 S.W.3d 749 (Ky. 2016)