The Kentucky Court of Appeals on Oct. 23, 2026 reversed a lower‑court ruling that had favored former husband Fred Holden in a dispute over a 3100 Apple Hill Road farm in Louisville.
The property, valued at $703,000, was part of a 2021 divorce settlement that gave Mary (now Carrigan) and Fred each a 50 percent interest. The agreement barred either party from selling or encumbering their share without written consent and allowed Fred to farm the land for “at least the next two years.”
After their son left the farm residence in January 2024, Mary demanded the property be listed for sale. Fred offered $125,000 for her share—a figure she rejected, citing a higher appraisal that placed the farm well above that amount.
The family court ruled in September 2025 that Fred could continue using the land indefinitely, a decision Mary appealed. The appeals court found the settlement’s wording ambiguous, noting that “at least” did not impose a strict two‑year limit on Fred’s use.
The court vacated the earlier order and remanded the case to Jefferson County family court for further proceedings, where evidence beyond the written agreement will be considered to determine whether the farm should be listed for sale after two years or remain in use.
The ruling underscores how vague language in divorce settlements can prolong disputes, even when ownership percentages and sale proceeds are clearly defined.