More than a decade after Kim Davis denied two Kentucky men a marriage licence, their legal battle has moved from the county clerk’s office to property records and inheritance law.
David Ermold and David Moore have filed a new lawsuit accusing the former Rowan County clerk of transferring inherited assets to relatives and a family trust to prevent the couple from collecting money she owes them.
The allegations have not yet been decided by a court, and Davis’s attorneys deny that she acted improperly.
The latest complaint was filed in Rowan Circuit Court by attorneys representing Ermold and Moore (Instinct).
The couple became central figures in the national fight over marriage equality after Davis refused to issue them a licence following the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Davis cited her Apostolic Christian beliefs and stopped her office from issuing marriage licences to any couple rather than approve licences for same-sex couples.
She continued refusing after a federal judge ordered her to comply and ultimately spent several days in jail for contempt of court.
Deputy clerks began issuing licences while Davis was detained, and Ermold and Moore eventually married in October 2015.
Their civil rights lawsuit continued for years after they obtained the licence.
A federal judge ruled in 2022 that Davis had violated their constitutional rights while acting as an elected government official.
A jury awarded the men a combined $100,000 in damages in 2023.
Davis was subsequently ordered to pay more than $260,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
Her appeals argued that the First Amendment should protect her from personal liability because issuing a same-sex marriage licence conflicted with her religious beliefs.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, concluding that constitutional protections for private religious conduct did not allow a public official to deny citizens their rights while performing government duties.
The United States Supreme Court declined to hear Davis’s appeal in November 2025, leaving the lower court decisions and the judgment against her intact.
The current dispute concerns whether Davis later placed assets outside the couple’s reach.
The newly filed complaint alleges that Davis inherited a 50% interest in her mother’s estate in early 2025.
The estate was reportedly valued at approximately $735,230.
Attorneys for Ermold and Moore say county records show that several properties were later transferred to relatives and a family trust.
The assets reportedly included a family home, a farm covering approximately 50 acres and another residence.
The lawsuit says the transfers were made for family affection and without monetary consideration.
The plaintiffs argue that this effectively removed Davis’s ownership while she remained responsible for an unpaid legal judgment.
Their attorneys are asking the court to reverse the transfers under Kentucky’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.
That law permits judges to undo certain transactions if property was moved to hinder, delay or defraud creditors.
It can also apply when assets are transferred without reasonably equivalent value while a debt remains outstanding.
The couple’s legal team says Davis now owes a total of $565,285.91 after additional costs and interest.
Attorney Michael Gartland told reporters that his clients had received only “a penny” from Davis so far.
He described the property records as unusually strong evidence supporting their claim.
Another attorney for the couple, Joseph Buckles, said discovering the transactions required examining probate files and county records.
Davis’s attorneys strongly dispute the accusation that she attempted to conceal property.
Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver, who represents Davis, said she answered deposition questions truthfully because she was asked what property she currently owned rather than what she had previously inherited.
He also said Davis transferred the assets to carry out her late mother’s wishes.
The plaintiffs argue that the probate records do not contain a formal will directing those transfers.
A judge must now decide whether the property changes were ordinary family estate planning or legally voidable transfers designed to frustrate creditors.
The new lawsuit does not reopen the question of whether Davis violated the couple’s constitutional rights.
That issue has already been decided repeatedly in federal court.
It also does not mean the couple has automatically gained ownership of the transferred properties.
They are asking a state court to make those assets available as they attempt to enforce the existing judgment.
The dispute illustrates how a celebrated civil rights victory can still require years of additional litigation before the people who won receive meaningful compensation.
Ermold and Moore obtained their marriage licence in 2015 and later proved that their rights had been violated.
They then defended that judgment through multiple appeals, including Davis’s unsuccessful attempt to bring the case before the Supreme Court and challenge marriage equality itself.
More than ten years after they first walked into the Rowan County clerk’s office, the couple is still asking the courts to ensure that its decisions carry consequences.
The licence was eventually issued, the constitutional violation was established and the damages were awarded, but the final payment remains another legal battle entirely.
📷 David Ermold
🎬 Prefer video? Subscribe to B-Gay on YouTube: https://youtube.com/@BGaycom
