Judge Says Kim Davis Failed to Disclose Inheritance While She Still Owes $565,000 to Gay Couple
Davis, who infamously refused to provide marriage licenses to queer couples in 2025, has to explain why she didn’t tell the court about the inheritance.
A federal judge is demanding to know why Kim Davis, yes, that Kim Davis, did not disclose all of her assets after she was found liable for thousands of dollars in damages from a civil suit involving a gay couple she refused to wed as a Kentucky county clerk.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward Adkins has ordered Davis to respond to the couple’s allegations that she withheld information about an inheritance in order to avoid paying them the damages she owes them, according to Louisville Public Media.
In 2015, Davis made headlines after refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because she said it violated her religious beliefs. She did so in defiance of SCOTUS’ ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. Married at least three times herself (by some accounts, four), the former Kentucky county clerk was put behind bars in contempt of court after refusing to follow a federal judge’s order.
The couples sued, and a federal jury granted one of the couples, David Moore and David Ermold, damages and attorney’s fees that now is about $565,000.
Earlier this year, the couple brought another suit accusing Davis of lying under oath about her assets.
LPM reports that the suit alleges that Davis and her brother, Darold Rayburn Bailey Jr., inherited a $735,230 property from their mother last year. It accuses Davis of transferring the money from her share to Bailey, a sister-in-law, her husband, and her son in 2025.
The outlet reports that court filings estimate Davis’ share to be worth about $200,000.
Adkins wrote that Moore and Ermold found certified records in Rowan County showing Davis proof of the inheritance as well as records of the transfers, local station WKYT reports.
“Defendant does not deny the existence of these certified public records, does not address if or why these documents are outside of the scope of Plaintiffs’ requests, and gives no reason for not producing complete responses and documents,” Adkins’ order read.
The lawyer for the gay couple, Michael Gartland, told local station WEKU, he may appeal the judge not holding Davis in contempt of court.
“I would have held her in contempt because this court already held her in contempt and put her in jail years ago for failing to issue the licenses after the court ordered her to do so,” Gartland said. “So I thought there was a chance.”
Davis has until November 16 to provide Adkins with answers.
