Former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis faces contempt-of-court bid over alleged false statements about assets

Austin R. Ramsey, Lexington Herald-Leader on Jul 29, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

LEXINGTON, Ky. — The same-sex couple former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to in 2015 want her held in contempt for allegedly lying about her assets to avoid paying a half-a-million-dollar judgment a jury awarded them.

In a motion filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, attorneys Michael Gartland and Joseph Buckles asked a federal judge to order Davis to show cause why she should not be held in contempt. The motion alleges Davis falsely denied owning property, benefiting from a trust or making significant asset transfers while responding to post-judgment interrogatories.

The contempt motion is the latest escalation in the yearslong legal battle between Davis and David Ermold and David Moore, the couple she refused to issue a marriage license to in 2015 following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

This week, the Herald-Leader reported on a state-level case the attorneys filed against Davis to void the transfer of several properties she inherited and then gifted to her family members shortly after an appeals court affirmed the jury-awarded judgment against her. With attorneys’ fees, and other legal costs, Davis now reportedly owes the couple more than $565,000.

“The answers are not merely incomplete, they are contradicted by recorded instruments bearing Davis’s own signature,” attorneys for the couple wrote in a motion for sanctions and to hold Davis in contempt.

Attorneys for Ermold and Moore say they haven’t received “a penny” of the money they’re due, but the state-level property voidance case could be their best shot at recovery, they told the Herald-Leader.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her case on appeal, leaving the judgments — and her bill — intact.

According to the filing, those alleged transfers, which would have netted her more than $200,000, directly contradicted Davis’ sworn statements that she owned no property, had no interest in any trust and had not made gifts or asset transfers exceeding $2,000 during the previous year.

The attorneys are asking the court to find Davis in contempt and impose sanctions for what they describe as false and misleading responses during the judgment collection process.

If a judge finds Davis in civil contempt, the court could impose sanctions designed to compel her compliance with its orders rather than punish her for past conduct. Those sanctions can include monetary fines, orders requiring her to produce financial records or turn over assets, or other measures intended to help enforce the judgment in favor of Ermold and Moore.

Federal judges also have broad authority to sanction parties who provide false or misleading information during post-judgment discovery, the process creditors use to identify assets that can be used to satisfy a court judgment. In more serious cases, courts may order additional financial penalties or refer evidence of potential perjury or other misconduct to prosecutors, though such referrals are uncommon and would require a separate criminal investigation.

The nonprofit Christian strategic litigation firm Liberty Counsel, who represents Davis in the case, didn’t immediately respond to a Herald-Leader request for comment Wednesday.

_____