Kentucky court orders fresh review of $703,000 farm dispute after divorce

Representative Image (AI-generated)A divorce settlement intended to divide a couple’s property has led to a fresh legal battle over a $703,000 Kentucky farm. After nearly 47 years of marriage, Mary Holden and Fred Holden agreed to retain equal ownership of the property, but disagreed over when it should be sold. According to the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ October 23, 2026, opinion in Mary Holden (now Carrigan) v. Fred Holden, available on Justia, the court overturned a lower court ruling that favoured Fred’s interpretation of the agreement. The case has been sent back to the family court to determine what the former spouses originally intended.Divorce agreement left the farm’s future uncertainMary and Fred Holden married in 1972 and divorced after approximately 47 years together. In February 2021, they entered into a property settlement agreement that was incorporated into their divorce decree. The agreement covered their jointly owned farm at 3100 Apple Hill Road in Louisville, Kentucky, valued at $703,000. Both former spouses retained 50% ownership interests, with rights of survivorship.The settlement prohibited either party from selling, transferring, renting, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering their interest without the other’s express written consent. It also stated that Fred could continue using the farm, its equipment and tools to raise crops for “at least the next two years, after which the property will be listed for sale.” The net proceeds from the eventual sale were to be divided equally. The disagreement centred on whether the property had to be listed after two years or whether Fred could continue farming indefinitely, delaying the sale for as long as he used the land for agricultural purposes.Wife sought sale after their son moved outAccording to the court opinion, the couple’s son moved out of the farm residence in January 2024. Mary subsequently asked Fred either to purchase her share or agree to list the property for sale. Fred offered $125,000 for her interest. Mary rejected the offer, pointing to an earlier appraisal that valued the farm at substantially more than twice that amount. Fred later declined to negotiate further or agree to put the property on the market.On March 25, 2025, Mary filed a motion asking the Jefferson Family Court to order the farm listed for sale. The following month, she sought summary judgment, arguing that the settlement clearly required the property to be listed after the initial two-year period. Fred disagreed, maintaining that the wording allowed him to continue farming beyond that period. On September 3, 2025, the family court sided with him, concluding that he could continue using the property for as long as he farmed it. The court denied Mary’s request to order a sale, prompting her appeal.Appeals court finds agreement ambiguousThe Kentucky Court of Appeals examined whether the disputed provision was unambiguous, reviewing that legal question independently. It concluded that both parties had reasonable interpretations of the wording. Mary argued that the agreement guaranteed Fred at least two years of farming but separately required the property to be listed for sale after that period. Under her interpretation, he could continue farming while the property was marketed and until a sale was completed.Fred relied on the words “at least” to argue that his right to use the farm extended beyond two years. He also pointed to provisions requiring both parties to share property taxes and insurance in subsequent years, which he said supported continued joint ownership and farming. The appeals court acknowledged that “at least” did not establish a strict two-year limit on Fred’s use. However, that did not automatically mean continued farming could postpone the sale indefinitely.Because the agreement did not expressly explain whether ongoing agricultural use would delay listing the property, the judges found the provision ambiguous. They therefore rejected the lower court’s conclusion that the written agreement conclusively supported Fred’s interpretation.Case returns for a fresh reviewThe appeals court vacated the September 3, 2025, order and sent the dispute back to the Jefferson Family Court for further proceedings. It did not order an immediate sale. The lower court can now consider evidence beyond the written agreement, including the circumstances surrounding its execution, the former spouses’ intentions and their conduct after signing it.That evidence will help determine whether Fred’s continued farming was meant to postpone the sale or whether the property was supposed to be listed after two years regardless of his agricultural use. The ruling leaves the farm’s future unresolved. It highlights how unclear wording in divorce settlements can lead to prolonged disputes, even when ownership shares and the division of sale proceeds are explicitly established.