Michael Lee Brewington v. Lisa Jill Brewington

── Michael Lee Brewington v. Lisa Jill Brewington ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky Date: May 22, 2026 Author: Acree Category: General RENDERED: MAY 22, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2025-CA-0482-MR MICHAEL LEE BREWINGTON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM BALLARD CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE TIMOTHY A. LANGFORD, JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-CI-00006 LISA JILL BREWINGTON APPELLEE OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: ACREE, A. JONES, AND KAREM, JUDGES. ACREE, JUDGE: Michael Brewington appeals the Ballard Circuit Court’s order that he pay Lisa Brewington $10,000.00 pursuant to their agreed mediation order, as well as her attorney fees of $2,000.00. We affirm. Before proceeding with our review, we note that in a prior case in which Michael’s counsel advocated in this Court for a different appellant, we “leniently decline[d] to strike [that appellant’s] brief despite its substantial failure to comply with RAP[1] briefing rules.” Carter v. Carter, No. 2024-CA-0996-MR, 2025 WL 2942325, at *1 (Ky. App. Oct. 17, 2025). In the instant case, Michael’s counsel filed another brief that is substantially noncompliant with those rules and that would justify striking the brief and dismissing the appeal. However, she filed Michael’s brief nine days before we rendered Carter admonishing her. Therefore, we again, and for the final time, extend lenity. Counsel is now on notice that her filing of substantially noncompliant briefs in the future will invite the sanctions available to this Court, including a fine not to exceed $1,000, in addition to striking the brief and the possibility of dismissing the appeal. In the underlying divorce action, the parties entered into an agreed mediation order. Under the agreement, Michael was to retain the marital home, remove Lisa from the mortgage, and pay her $10,000.00. Lisa is a teacher, and, per the agreement, Michael was to receive half of her Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System (KTRS) plan payments upon entry of a separate qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The trial court entered a QDRO the next month. Correspondence in the record indicates the QDRO was initially rejected by KTRS because Michael’s attorney failed to comply with certain statutory requirements. 1 Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure. -2-  Months later, Lisa filed a motion to compel, alleging Michael failed to pay her the $10,000.00 pursuant to the agreed mediation order. She sought the payment and reimbursement of her attorney fees. Michael responded by arguing Lisa already effectively received the $10,000 because she continued receiving full KTRS payments even after initial entry of the QDRO entitling Michael to a portion. By his undocumented estimate, she received $12,400.00 that should have gone to him. The trial court faulted Michael for the issues with the KTRS payments, ordered him to pay the $10,000.00, and also ordered him to pay Lisa’s attorney fees of $2,000.00. A trial court has authority “to enforce its own judgments and remove any obstructions to such enforcement. A court also has the right to invoke the contempt power in enforcing a judgment.” Akers v. Stephenson, 469 S.W.2d 704, 706 (Ky. 1970) (citations omitted). “As an appellate court, we are required to give deference to the trial court’s interpretation of its own orders. Unless that interpretation is manifestly unreasonable, we will affirm.” VP Louisville, LLC v. NBH Bank, N.A., 578 S.W.3d 753, 757 (Ky. App. 2019). The order is not manifestly unreasonable. Despite Michael’s framing of the issues, this app