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. 2026, opinion in Mary Holden (now Carrigan) v, according to the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ October 23. The couple’s son moved out of the farm residence in January 2024, according to the court opinion. Fred offered $125,000 for her interest. On March 25, 2025, Mary filed a motion asking the Jefferson Family Court to order the farm listed for sale. 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 appeals court vacated the September 3, 2025, order and sent the dispute back to the Jefferson Family Court for further proceedings.
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.
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. Mary subsequently asked Fred either to purchase her share or agree to list the property for sale. Fred later declined to negotiate further or agree to put the property on the market. 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. The court denied Mary’s request to order a sale, prompting her appeal. The 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. However, that did not automatically mean continued farming could postpone the sale indefinitely. 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.
Mary rejected the offer, pointing to an earlier appraisal that valued the farm at substantially more than twice that amount.