Carmine Salerno v. Allison Salerno

── Carmine Salerno v. Allison Salerno ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky Date: May 08, 2026 Author: Acree Category: General RENDERED: MAY 8, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-1465-MR CARMINE SALERNO APPELLANT APPEAL FROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JEFFREY C. MOSS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-CI-00032 ALLISON SALERNO APPELLEE OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND MCNEILL, JUDGES. ACREE, JUDGE: Appellant Carmine Salerno appeals the Garrard Family Court’s order dividing property and awarding Appellee Allison Salerno permanent spousal maintenance. Finding no error, we affirm. BACKGROUND The parties were married to one another twice, the second time on November 9, 2011. Carmine filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on January 10, 2023. Prior to filing, the parties were separated and living in separate residences: Allison and the parties’ 16-year-old child, A.S., in Kentucky and Carmine in New York. Even prior to separation, this was the parties’ living arrangement for most of their time together; Carmine spent only brief periods of time at the marital residence in Kentucky. The family court undertook factfinding and awarded marital and nonmarital property, maintenance, and custody. Carmine appeals two specific rulings—the award to Allison of the marital residence in Kentucky including pets, livestock, a tractor, and other farm equipment, and the debts associated with the property; and the award to Allison of $7,500.00 per month in permanent maintenance. Carmine argues each determination was an abuse of the family court’s discretion. We address each argument in turn. ANALYSIS On review, we recognize the trial court has wide discretion in dividing marital property, and we may not disturb the trial court’s rulings on property division issues unless we find the trial court abused its discretion. Maclean v. Middleton, 419 S.W.3d 755, 772 (Ky. App. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court’s decision was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999)). -2-  We note at the outset that Allison did not file an appellee brief. Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure (“RAP”) 31(H)(3) provides: If the appellee’s brief has not been filed within the time allowed, the court may: (a) accept the appellant’s statement of the facts and issues as correct; (b) reverse the judgment if appellant’s brief reasonably appears to sustain such action; or (c) regard the appellee’s failure as a confession of error and reverse the judgment without considering the merits of the case. However, this Court may decline to exercise any of the options provided for in RAP 31(H)(3). Strong v. Gary, 673 S.W.3d 77, 79 (Ky. App. 2023) (citing Roberts v. Bucci, 218 S.W.3d 395, 296 (Ky. App. 2007)). Here, we find none of the options appropriate and will proceed with our review. A. Kentucky marital residence KRS1 403.190 governs the disposition of property in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage. It provides, in pertinent part: [T]he court shall assign each spouse’s property to him. It also shall divide the marital property without regard to marital misconduct in just proportions con