A Kentucky court recently upheld a decision to reduce the maintenance obligation of Stephen Hensley to his former spouse, Debra Hensley. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky ruled on November 6, 2026, affirming the Jefferson Family Court's order that reduced Stephen's monthly payments but did not terminate them. This ruling affects Stephen and Debra Hensley and addresses how maintenance obligations can be modified in divorce cases.

Stephen Hensley and Debra Hensley were married in November 1985 and separated in February 2014. Debra filed for divorce in July 2014, and the couple attended mediation to resolve their issues. They reached an agreement on most matters, but maintenance was a point of contention. In January 2015, the family court awarded Debra permanent maintenance of $5,330 per month. The court specified that maintenance would terminate upon the death of either party or Debra's remarriage, as outlined in Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 403.250(2).

Following the court's ruling, Stephen struggled to meet his maintenance obligations, leading to a significant arrearage. He filed multiple motions to reduce or terminate his payments, which were consistently denied. Debra also filed motions to hold Stephen in contempt for his non-payment. The court found Stephen in contempt on two occasions, noting his relocation to Mexico and claims of financial losses that he could not substantiate.

In February 2019, Stephen and Debra reached an agreement that reduced his maintenance obligation to $2,000 per month, plus an additional $875 toward his arrearage. This agreement stated that maintenance could be modified based on KRS 403 and would terminate under specific conditions, including Debra's death or remarriage.

In August 2025, Stephen filed another motion to terminate his maintenance obligation. A hearing was held in November 2025, during which the family court acknowledged significant changes in both parties' circumstances. The court decided to reduce Stephen's maintenance obligation further to $1,000 per month, effective September 1, 2025. Stephen subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend this decision, which was denied, prompting his appeal.

The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Easton, reviewed the case and concluded that the family court did not abuse its discretion in modifying Stephen's maintenance obligation. The court noted, "The family court clearly did take the parties’ financial positions into consideration, as it modified Stephen’s maintenance; it decreased the amount again in half from $2,000 monthly to $1,000 monthly." The court emphasized that the key issue was whether the continued maintenance was unconscionable rather than whether Debra would be entitled to maintenance if decided today.

Stephen argued that the family court's findings were erroneous and claimed that Debra's financial situation was significantly better than his own. However, the court found that the family court had appropriately considered the evidence and determined that the maintenance reduction was justified based on changed circumstances.

The ruling also clarified that the parties had entered into an enforceable agreement regarding maintenance, which limited the circumstances under which it could be terminated. The court stated, "An agreement is an enforceable contract between the parties, and it is not the place of courts to disturb it absent some showing of fraud, undue influence, overreaching or manifest unfairness."

This ruling has implications for future divorce cases in Kentucky, particularly regarding how maintenance obligations can be modified. It highlights the importance of agreements made during divorce proceedings and the standards that courts will apply when considering modifications to maintenance. The court's decision reinforces that maintenance can be adjusted based on substantial and continuing changes in circumstances but does not automatically terminate based on one party's improved financial situation.

Going forward, this ruling may influence similar cases in Kentucky and provide guidance on how maintenance obligations can be approached in divorce settlements. Stephen Hensley has the option to appeal this decision, but details regarding any potential appeal were not provided in the court filing. There are no related cases currently pending in this matter.