🌎 Resumen en español · traducción automática
Los abogados de la pareja a la que la exfuncionaria Kim Davis le negó una licencia matrimonial hace más de una década alegan que ella mintió sobre sus bienes para evitar pagar aproximadamente $570,000 que les debe a ellos y a sus abogados, según documentos judiciales de julio presentados ante la Corte de Distrito de Estados Unidos. Davis afirmó a finales de 2025 que no tenía propiedad alguna, pero los abogados sostienen que ese mismo año heredó la mitad de la herencia de su madre de $735,230. Los abogados solicitan que Davis sea citada a comparecer y responda nuevamente a las preguntas, además de buscan sanciones en su contra incluyendo honorarios de abogados.
Traducción y resumen generados por IA a partir del artículo en inglés. Puede contener errores; consulte el texto original.
Kim Davis, then the Rowan county clerk, waved to supporters at a rally outside the Carter County Detention Center on Sept. 8, 2015 in Grayson. Davis was ordered to jail for contempt of court after refusing a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (Photo by Ty Wright/Getty Images)
Attorneys for the couple denied a marriage license by former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis more than a decade ago now allege she lied about her assets to avoid dishing out the roughly $570,000 she owes to them and to their attorneys.
According to July court documents, filed in the U.S. District Court, Davis said in late 2025 she had no property or claim to any trust. Earlier that year, the lawyers say, she inherited half of her late mother’s $735,230.00 estate.
Lawyers are now asking that Davis be ordered into court to “show cause why she should not be held in contempt of Court for serving materially false sworn responses.” They’re also seeking sanctions against Davis, including attorney fees. They also want Davis to answer questions again.
Kim Davis’ lawyer eager for next step as he argues same-sex marriage case before appeals panel
Liberty Counsel, the firm that represented Davis in her First Amendment appeals, said in an email that “being a co-administrator of her mother’s estate did not transfer title to Kim. Kim’s mother wanted her property to go to her grandchildren.”
“Kim Davis provided answers and documents responsive to those interrogatories and document requests from the plaintiffs. Kim answered the propounded questions truthfully,” the firm said, and then quoted a Bible verse: “As Proverbs says, ‘The one who states his case first seems right until another comes forth to challenge him.’ The plaintiffs should be cautious in their use of inflammatory allegations. Their allegations should be based on facts and litigated in court, not via slanderous accusations in the media.”
In 2015, after the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, Davis would not issue David Ermold and David Moore a marriage license based on her personal religious beliefs.
In court, her lawyers argued she should have been protected by the First Amendment — but a Court of Appeals panel didn’t buy that, saying last March that she “cannot raise a Free Exercise Clause defense because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect.”
