Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Jennifer Marie Hodges v. Christopher Ray Hodges

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2025-CA-0020
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Judges: Caldwell

• Disposition: OPINION VACATING AND REMANDING

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (90.4K)

• PDF

Disposition

OPINION VACATING AND REMANDING

Combined Opinion

RENDERED: APRIL 3, 2026; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2025-CA-0020-MR

JENNIFER MARIE HODGES APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN FAMILY COURT
v. HONORABLE BRANDI H. ROGERS, SPECIAL JUDGE
ACTION NO. 21-CI-00887

CHRISTOPHER RAY HODGES APPELLEE

OPINION
VACATING AND REMANDING

---

BEFORE: CALDWELL, L. JONES, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

CALDWELL, JUDGE: Jennifer Hodges appeals from the modification of

maintenance and the denial of her request for attorney fees. We vacate and remand

with directions to make statutorily required findings before ruling on the

modification motion and to reconsider the attorney fees request accordingly.
FACTS

In January 2023, Jennifer Hodges (“Jennifer”) and Christopher

Hodges (“Christopher”) were divorced after more than thirty years of marriage.

The divorce decree incorporated the parties’ settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement provided that Christopher must pay Jennifer

$1,500.00 monthly maintenance for 144 months beginning in November 2022.

The agreement also stated Christopher suffered from a lung condition and: “As a

result of this, the parties agree that the Petitioner’s [Christopher’s] maintenance

obligation may be modified or terminated by this Court if his medical condition

worsens in the future rendering him unable to maintain employment [at] his current

capacity.” (Record on Appeal, (“R”), p. 57).

In January 2024, Jennifer filed a verified motion seeking for

Christopher to be held in contempt for failing to pay his full maintenance

obligation. She averred Christopher made maintenance payments of only $500.00

each for October and November 2023 and failed to pay any maintenance in

December 2023.

Christopher filed a motion to terminate or modify his maintenance

obligation on the same day that Jennifer filed her contempt motion. Alleging his

medical condition had worsened, he referred to the provision about maintenance

modification in the settlement agreement.

-2-
In September 2024, the family court held a hearing on Jennifer’s

contempt motion and Christopher’s motion to terminate or modify maintenance.

Witnesses included Christopher, his treating pulmonologist, Christopher’s current

wife, and Jennifer.

In early October 2024, the family court issued an order finding

Christopher in contempt for not paying his maintenance obligation in full. It

ordered Christopher to pay Jennifer a lump sum to purge the contempt.1 However,

the court also reduced the maintenance obligation to $900.00 per month effective

January 2024 (when the motion for modification was filed). The court denied

Jennifer’s request for attorney fees.

Jennifer filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate. The family court

denied this motion. Jennifer timely filed the instant appeal. Further facts will be

set forth as needed in our analysis.

ANALYSIS

We Review the Family Court’s Resolution of Legal Issues De Novo

Jennifer argues the family court misconstrued the parties’ settlement

agreement and erred in not resolving the motion to modify maintenance under the

1
Christopher did not file a cross-appeal challenging the contempt finding or his being ordered to
pay a lump sum to purge the contempt.

-3-
standard in KRS2 403.250.3 We review the family court’s resolution of legal issues

including interpretation of statutes and contracts de novo, meaning without

deference. Money v. Money, 297 S.W.3d 69, 71 (Ky. App. 2009); Blackaby v.

Barnes, 614 S.W.3d 897, 900 (Ky. 2021).

Statutory Standards Regarding Settlement Agreements and Maintenance
Modification

KRS 403.180 provides in pertinent part:

(1) To promote amicable settlement of disputes between
parties to a marriage attendant upon their separation or
the dissolution of their marriage, the parties may enter
into a written separation agreement containing provisions
for maintenance of either of them, disposition of any
property owned by either of them, and custody, support
and visitation of their children.

(2) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or for
legal separation, the terms of the separation agreement,
except those providing for the custody, support, and
visitation of children, are binding upon the court unless it
finds, after considering the economic circumstances of
the parties and any other relevant evidence produced by
the parties, on their own motion or on request of the
court, that the separation agreement is unconscionable.

...

(5) Terms of the agreement set forth in the decree are
enforceable by all remedies available for enforcement of

2
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
3
Jennifer also argues the family court made clearly erroneous factual findings and abused its
discretion in reducing maintenance. But we do not reach these issues because we simply vacate
the modification and remand for explicit consideration of KRS 403.250(1) requirements.

-4-
a judgment, including contempt, and are enforceable as
contract terms.

(6) Except for terms concerning the support, custody, or
visitation of children, the decree may expressly preclude
or limit modification of terms if the separation agreement
so provides. Otherwise, terms of a separation agreement
are automatically modified by modification of the decree.

KRS 403.250 states:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (6) of
KRS 403.180, the provisions of any decree respecting
maintenance may be modified only upon a showing of
changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as
to make the terms unconscionable. The provisions as to
property disposition may not be revoked or modified,
unless the court finds the existence of conditions that
justify the reopening of a judgment under the laws of this
state.

(2) Unless otherwise agreed in writing or expressly
provided in the decree, the obligation to pay future
maintenance is terminated upon the death of either party
or the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance.

Jennifer points out that the family court made no findings of a

substantial and continuing change of circumstances or of unconscionability in its

orders modifying maintenance and denying the motion to alter, amend, or vacate.

See KRS 403.250(1). She contends the modification order must be vacated.

Christopher disagrees. He asserts it was not necessary for the family

court to make the findings called for in KRS 403.250(1). He argues:

Because the parties negotiated and entered into an agreed
marital settlement agreement, pursuant to KRS

-5-
403.180(6), the trial court did not need to find there was
any ongoing change in circumstances or
unconscionability in order to modify the amount of
maintenance. It simply needed to apply the terms and
provisions of the parties’ agreed marital settlement.

(Appellee brief, p. 5).

Settlement Agreement Provisions Concerning Maintenance

The parties’ marital settlement agreement states:

1. The Petitioner [Christopher] agrees to pay
   maintenance to the Respondent in the amount of
   $1500.00 per month for 144 months beginning
   November 2022. The Petitioner agrees to maintain a
   term life insurance policy with Respondent [Jennifer] as
   the beneficiary for the duration of the maintenance
   payments.

2. The parties further agree that the Petitioner’s
   maintenance obligation shall terminate upon the death of
   either party, the remarriage of the Respondent, or
   cohabitation of the Respondent pursuant [to] Combs v.
   Combs.[4]

3. The parties further acknowledge that Petitioner
   suffers from a lung condition contracted as a result of his
   service as [a] first [responder] in New York City on
   September 11th, 2001. As a result of this, the parties
   agree that the Petitioner’s maintenance obligation may be
   modified or terminated by this Court if his medical
   condition worsens in the future rendering him unable to
   maintain employment at his current capacity.

(R, p. 57).

4
See generally Combs v. Combs, 787 S.W.2d 260 (Ky. 1990).

-6-
Considering these provisions (particularly Paragraph 14), the family

court evidently viewed the standard in KRS 403.250(1) as not applicable. The

court found the evidence showed Christopher’s condition had worsened, resulting

in him not being able to maintain employment at the same capacity. The court

reduced the maintenance award.

The court discussed Christopher’s testimony about his medical

condition worsening, his taking Family and Medical Leave Act leave starting in

September 2023, and his reducing his work hours to 0.6 (six-tenths) full-time

beginning in January 2024. It also found Dr. Keith Kelly had been treating

Christopher for about ten years and had testified to Christopher’s condition

worsening over the past two years.5

The court further found: “While Dr. Kelly has not found Christopher

unable to work, Christopher’s condition does affect his ability to work and

supported Christopher’s move to reduce his work hours.” (R, p. 284.) See also

Page 3 of order granting modification of maintenance (“maintenance modification

order”), attached as Exhibit 1 to the appendix to the red appellant brief.

The family court also noted authority holding that settlement

agreements are enforceable and that family courts must interpret the parties’

5
The family court rendered the January 2023 divorce decree incorporating the settlement
agreement less than two years before entering the maintenance modification order.

-7-
intentions based on the contract. (Page 3 of maintenance modification order)

(citing Nelson v. Ecklar, 588 S.W.3d 872, 878 (Ky. App. 2019)).

The family court determined that Christopher’s maintenance

obligation must be reduced due to evidence of his medical condition worsening

and affecting his ability to work. It did not mention the standard for modifying

maintenance in KRS 403.250(1):

In this case, the parties specifically and explicitly
anticipated Christopher’s medical condition worsening
and affecting his ability to work. Christopher has
reduced his employment to 0.6 FTE. His doctor supports
this change. There is no evidence Christopher is
misrepresenting his medical condition or inability to
maintain his employment at the capacity he was at the
time the parties’ [sic] entered their Agreement.
Therefore, pursuant to the explicit terms of the parties’
Agreement, the Court finds Christopher’s maintenance
obligation should be modified consistent with the degree
his employment has been modified.

(R, p. 285, page 4 of maintenance modification order).

Evidently accepting Christopher’s arguments, the family court did not

explicitly discuss Jennifer’s argument that KRS 403.250’s standard must still be

met to modify maintenance. But Jennifer’s argument merits further consideration

and discussion.

As Jennifer pointed out in her motion to alter, amend, or vacate as

well as her appellate briefs, the settlement agreement provision about modifying

maintenance does not use the term shall. (In contrast, another settlement

-8-
agreement provision states maintenance shall be terminated upon Jennifer’s

remarriage or cohabitation or the death of either party.) Paragraph 14 simply states

the court “may” modify maintenance if Christopher’s condition worsens so that he

is unable to work at the same capacity. And unlike the term shall, the term may

does not refer to mandatory action.

We note the word may is also used in KRS 403.250(1). KRS

403.250(1) states maintenance “may” be modified “only” upon a showing of a

substantial and continuing change of circumstances which renders the original

obligation unconscionable. In contrast, Paragraph 14 of the parties’ settlement

agreement does not state that maintenance may only be modified if Christopher’s

condition worsens resulting in his being unable to work at the same capacity.

We also note the settlement agreement does not expressly state

whether KRS 403.250’s standard for modification must still be satisfied. Compare

Holland v. Herzfeld, 610 S.W.3d 360 (Ky. App. 2020). In Holland, the parties’

settlement agreement expressly “incorporated the statutory standard for

modification of maintenance” in KRS 403.250. Thus, the agreement required that

maintenance “may be modified only upon a showing of changed circumstances so

substantial and continuing as to make the terms unconscionable.” Id. at 363.

We upheld the denial of maintenance modification in Holland since:

“The family court applied the correct standard, as mandated by the PSA [property

-9-
settlement agreement], of changed circumstances and unconscionability under

KRS 403.250 in assessing whether a modification of maintenance was warranted.”

Id. at 364.

Pointing to the lack of mention of the statutory standard in the

settlement agreement provision on modifying maintenance here in contrast to

Holland, Christopher contends the family court did not err in not making explicit

KRS 403.250(1) findings. He argues he is entitled to maintenance reduction under

Paragraph 14 since the family court made findings of his condition worsening and

his being unable to work at the same capacity as before.

On the other hand, Jennifer argues that the settlement agreement

provision about maintenance modification is of no practical effect. She suggests

Paragraph 14 simply notes Christopher’s lung condition and indicates the court

might possibly modify maintenance if the condition worsens affecting

Christopher’s employment capacity.

She contends Paragraph 14 does not clearly establish a different

standard for modification than KRS 403.250(1). She asserts that even if

Christopher’s condition has worsened and he is unable to work at the same

capacity, that he is not entitled to reduction of his maintenance obligation unless he

can make the showings required by KRS 403.250—i.e., a substantial and

-10-
continuing change of circumstances making the original maintenance award

unconscionable.

Having considered both positions, Jennifer’s argument is more

convincing. The settlement agreement indicated it was possible the court might

modify maintenance, and it did not expressly forbid modifying maintenance.

Compare Jaburg v. Jaburg, 558 S.W.3d 11, 13–14 (Ky. App. 2018) (construing

KRS 403.250 and KRS 403.180(6) together and concluding family court erred in

modifying maintenance since the parties’ settlement agreement expressly stated

maintenance was non-modifiable).6 But the settlement agreement does not

expressly state that KRS 403.250 requirements do not apply.

Thus, we construe Paragraph 14 of the settlement agreement to simply

reflect the possibility that the court may modify maintenance if a worsening of

Christopher’s medical condition and resulting reduced capacity to work leads the

court to make the findings required by KRS 403.250 for modifying maintenance.

6
See also Akagi-Johnson v. Johnson, No. 2021-CA-0342-MR, 2022 WL 569165 (Ky. App. Feb.
25, 2022) (unpublished) (hereinafter “Akagi-Johnson”). In Akagi-Johnson, we affirmed the
maintenance modification upon findings of unconscionability and substantial and continuing
change of circumstances as required by KRS 403.250, noting the parties’ settlement agreement
did not expressly preclude modification unlike the settlement agreement in Jaburg, 558 S.W.3d
11). 2022 WL 569165 at *3–4. Here, unlike Akagi-Johnson, the family court failed to make
KRS 403.250(1) findings of unconscionability and substantial and continuing change of
circumstances. Our unpublished opinion in Akagi-Johnson is not binding and citation of
unpublished precedent is disfavored. Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure (“RAP”) 41(A).
However, we discuss this unpublished opinion, cited in the appellee brief argument, to
distinguish Akagi-Johnson and explain why it does not persuade us that maintenance was
properly modified without KRS 403.250(1) findings here.

-11-
Paragraph 14 does not clearly establish different requirements for

modifying maintenance than KRS 403.250(1). It simply identifies one factor

which the court may consider in deciding whether to modify maintenance: change

in Christopher’s capacity to maintain employment stemming from his medical

condition worsening. But Paragraph 14 does not state that the court must or shall

modify maintenance based on this type of evidence. (Nor does this provision state

the court may modify maintenance based only on evidence of his condition

worsening resulting in a change in his capacity to maintain employment.)

In the absence of a settlement agreement provision clearly stating that

KRS 403.250(1) requirements do not apply or clearly imposing a different

modification standard, a family court must not modify maintenance without

making the findings required by KRS 403.250(1).7 This is consistent with our

7
Although not discussed in the parties’ briefs, KRS 403.180(6) does not expressly provide that
settlement agreements may expand the scope of maintenance modification or establish a lower
standard for modification than that in KRS 403.250(1). Instead, KRS 403.180(6) provides only
that: “the decree may expressly preclude or limit modification of terms if the separation
agreement so provides.” (Emphasis added.) Preclude means: “to make impossible by necessary
consequence : rule out in advance.” Preclude, MERRIAM-WEBSTER https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary (last visited Jan. 2, 2026).

But see Poppe v. Poppe, No. 2007-CA-000848-MR, 2008 WL 2779878 (Ky. App. Jul.
18, 2008) (unpublished) (“Poppe”). In Poppe, this Court stated parties can define the terms for
modifying maintenance, and we rejected an argument that the parties’ settlement agreement
could not establish a lower standard for modifying maintenance than KRS 403.250(1). Id. at *2–
3 (quoting Massey v. Massey, 220 S.W.3d 700, 703 (Ky. App. 2006)). We also held the lower
court did not abuse its discretion in modifying maintenance in light of a settlement agreement
provision stating the maintenance obligation was modifiable: “depending on the economic
standing of the parties.” Poppe, 2008 WL 2779878 at *1–3.

-12-
Supreme Court’s recognition that strict standards for modifying maintenance apply

to promote finality and stability. See generally Mahl v. Mahl, 671 S.W.3d 140,

148 (Ky. 2023) (citing Woodson v. Woodson, 338 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Ky. 2011)).

Moreover, reviewing the family court’s interpretation of the

settlement agreement de novo, we conclude the agreement did not clearly state that

a different standard applied to modifying maintenance rather than KRS 403.250(1).

Paragraph 14 simply recognizes that evidence of Christopher’s

medical condition and any effect on his capacity to work are among the factors

which a family court may consider in determining whether to modify maintenance.

The settlement agreement does not explicitly state the parties agree that

maintenance may be modified upon evidence of Christopher’s condition worsening

and his capacity to work being reduced even if these factors do not amount to a

substantial and continuing change of circumstances rendering the original award

unconscionable. Nor does it state that the maintenance obligation must or shall be

reduced upon evidence of Christopher’s condition worsening resulting in reduced

capacity to work.

Moreover, we disagree with Christopher’s argument that precedent

from this Court calls for affirming the modification despite the lack of KRS

403.250(1) findings considering the settlement agreement provisions at issue here.

-13-
Christopher’s brief correctly notes the original maintenance award

here is an open-ended one, because it could be modified or even terminated upon

circumstances including death of either party or Jennifer’s remarriage. See

generally Massey, 220 S.W.3d at 702–03. However, unlike Christopher, we do not

read Massey to support the family court’s modification of maintenance despite the

lack of KRS 403.250(1) findings. The mere fact that the parties entered into a

settlement agreement does not automatically mean that the requirements of KRS

403.250(1) do not apply.

In Massey, we did not review a ruling on a motion to modify

maintenance or construe settlement agreement provisions about modifying

maintenance. Id. at 702. Instead, we reversed the family court’s original award of

maintenance, because the court-imposed terms of the award violated Kentucky

statutes regarding how maintenance may be modified:

We read KRS 403.250(1) to provide that an open-
ended maintenance award may be modified either upon a
continuing and substantial change in circumstances
making the terms unconscionable or under the provisions
of KRS 403.180(6). KRS 403.180(6) provides that a
decree may “expressly preclude or limit modification of
terms if the separation agreement so provides.” Thus,
pursuant to a separation agreement, the parties may
define the terms by which an open-ended maintenance
award may be modified.

To summarize, an open-ended maintenance award
may be modified by only two methods: (1) agreement of
the parties pursuant to a separation agreement, or (2)

-14-
changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as
to make the terms of the award unconscionable.
Consequently, the family court’s order subjecting the
award to modification only if Lisa’s financial situation
improved is clearly contrary to the mandates of KRS
403.250(1). The family court simply cannot impose
modification terms upon an open-ended maintenance
award not authorized by KRS 403.250(1). As KRS
403.250(1) sets forth two specific methods by which an
open-ended maintenance award may be modified, we
conclude the family court erred by subjecting Lisa’s
maintenance award to modification only upon
improvement of Lisa’s financial situation. Upon remand,
we direct the family court to enter an award of
maintenance consistent with our opinion.

Id. at 703.

In sum, because the family court imposed a limitation on modification

which was not set forth in a settlement agreement and which was not consistent

with KRS 403.250(1) requirements for modifying maintenance, we reversed the

original maintenance award in Massey.

But Massey does not address whether a court may properly modify

maintenance without making the findings required by KRS 403.250(1) when the

parties’ settlement agreement does not forbid modification but also does not

expressly state if KRS 403.250(1) requirements apply.

While Massey does not squarely address what standard applies in such

circumstances, other Kentucky precedent indicates that KRS 403.250 requirements

-15-
still apply to modifying maintenance in the absence of settlement agreement

provisions expressly limiting or precluding maintenance under KRS 403.180(6).

For example, when settlement agreement provisions merely allude to

the possibility of a court modifying maintenance without clearly establishing

another standard for modifying maintenance, precedent supports a holding that one

must make the showings required by KRS 403.250(1) to obtain modification.

In Wheeler v. Wheeler, 154 S.W.3d 291 (Ky. App. 2004), the parties’

settlement agreement provided the ex-wife would receive a set amount of monthly

maintenance until she died or remarried. But this agreement also stated the

maintenance obligation was subject to further court orders if either party had a

change of circumstances. Id. at 292. We noted that our unpublished opinion in a

prior appeal of the same case held that because the settlement agreement stated no

specific standard for determining whether there had been a change in

circumstances, the standard in KRS 403.250(1) applied. Wheeler, 154 S.W.3d at

292.8

Our earlier unpublished opinion in Wheeler held the lower court did

not err in denying the first modification motion due to the movant ex-wife’s failure

8
But see Poppe, 2008 WL 2779878 at *3 (affirming modification of maintenance, evidently
without KRS 403.250(1) findings, as “Here, in contrast to the general ‘change in circumstances’
standard reviewed in Wheeler, the separation agreement permits modification only under the
more clearly defined standard of ‘depending on the economic standing of the parties.’”).

-16-
to make KRS 403.250(1) showings. 154 S.W.3d at 292. Following this first

appeal, the ex-husband filed his own motion to modify maintenance, and the lower

court reduced the maintenance obligation.

In this second appeal, we determined the lower court erred in limiting

its consideration of circumstances to those occurring after the initial denial of

modification rather than considering all circumstances after the divorce decree.

But we did not back away from our earlier holding that the lower court must make

findings of unconscionability and substantial, continuing change of circumstances

to modify maintenance. Id. at 293–94.

Similarly, here the parties’ agreement did not clearly establish a

different standard to apply rather than KRS 403.250(1). They simply agreed that

Christopher’s lung condition and any resulting effect on his ability to work “may”

result in the family court modifying maintenance. And given that “reduced

employment capacity” does not automatically equate to reduced earnings, this

makes sense. But given the absence of clear language in the settlement

agreement’s permitting maintenance modification without KRS 403.250(1)

findings, the family court erred in not considering whether KRS 403.250(1)

requirements were fulfilled in ruling on the motion to modify.

-17-
So, we vacate the order modifying maintenance and remand for the

family court to make findings about whether Christopher has made the showings

required to modify maintenance pursuant to KRS 403.250.

Certainly, in determining whether the requirements for modifying

maintenance in KRS 403.250 are met, the family court may consider evidence of

any worsening of Christopher’s medical condition since the decree and any

resulting effect on his capacity to work in determining if KRS 403.250(1)’s

requirements are satisfied. However, the family court may not properly modify

maintenance without making findings of unconscionability and a substantial and

continuing change of circumstances as required by KRS 403.250.

Next, we turn our attention to the issue of attorney fees.

Family Court to Reconsider Attorney Fees Request As Well Upon Remand

In addition to challenging the maintenance modification, Jennifer

appeals from the denial of her request for attorney fees. She points out she sought

attorney fees not only for Christopher’s unilaterally reducing maintenance

payments, but also due to other factors, including his admitted failure to comply

with the divorce decree provision requiring him to pay her $5,000.00 within a year

of the decree. (At the hearing, the parties clarified that Christopher paid that sum

to Jennifer right before the hearing—which occurred over a year and a half after

-18-
entry of the divorce decree.) Jennifer also alleges that Christopher did not timely

or fully respond to her discovery requests.

We recognize Jennifer’s attorney fees request may be related to other

factors in addition to Christopher’s seeking to modify or terminate maintenance.

Nonetheless, since we vacate the order modifying maintenance and remand for a

determination of this issue under the standard in KRS 403.250(1), the forthcoming

maintenance decision may change the parties’ respective financial circumstances.

See KRS 403.220.

Moreover, the family court may reach a different understanding of the

fairness and/or merits of conduct in the modification proceeding considering our

holding and may wish to reconsider the attorney fees request accordingly. See

generally Picard v. Knight, 701 S.W.3d 467, 476 (Ky. 2024) (quoting Gentry v.

Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928, 938 (Ky. 1990)):

The amount of an award of attorney’s fees is committed
to the sound discretion of the trial court with good
reason. That court is in the best position to observe
conduct and tactics which waste the court’s and
attorneys’ time and must be given wide latitude to
sanction or discourage such conduct.

Upon remand, the family court has discretion to determine anew

whether Jennifer should be awarded attorney fees to sanction any wasteful conduct

in these proceedings, see id., and upon consideration of the parties’ respective

financial resources, KRS 403.220. We express no opinion on the merits of this

-19-
issue. But first, the court must determine whether Christopher has made the

necessary showings for maintenance modification pursuant to KRS 403.250(1).

Further arguments raised in the briefs which are not discussed herein

have been determined to lack merit or relevancy to our resolution of this appeal.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the modification of

maintenance and REMAND for the family court to determine whether KRS

403.250 requirements for modifying maintenance are met and then to reconsider

the attorney fees request accordingly.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Bradly A. Miller Warner T. Wheat
Paducah, Kentucky Paducah, Kentucky

-20-