Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is facing a lawsuit over property inherited from her mother. David Ermold and David Moore, the Kentucky couple who won a civil-rights judgment against Davis, claim she transferred inherited land and other assets to relatives to prevent them from collecting the money she owes.
The complaint was filed in Rowan Circuit Court on July 15, 2026. It seeks to reverse the disputed transfers and make the property available to satisfy a judgment reported at $565,285.91. Davis has not been found liable in this new case, and the allegations must still be proved.
Why Davis Owes the Couple Money
The dispute began in 2015, after the US Supreme Court recognised a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Davis, then the elected Rowan County clerk, stopped her office from issuing marriage licences because of her religious objections.
Ermold and Moore sued after being denied a licence. A federal court ruled that Davis violated their constitutional rights while acting as a government official. In September 2023, a jury awarded the couple $100,000 in compensatory damages, divided equally between them.
The amount later increased through legal fees and expenses. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgment in March 2025. The US Supreme Court declined to hear Davis’s appeal on November 10, 2025, leaving the lower-court ruling intact. Additional appellate fees and expenses were awarded in May 2026.
What Property Did Kim Davis Inherit?
According to the complaint, Davis’s mother died in January 2025. Davis and her brother, Darold Rayburn Bailey Jr., then inherited money and real estate from the estate.
Reports based on the filing say three parcels of land are involved. Deed certificates reportedly list their combined value at more than $400,000, while Davis’s alleged share has been valued at over $200,000.
The plaintiffs claim Davis transferred interests in the property between April and May 2025. Some land was allegedly transferred to her brother and sister-in-law without payment. The lawsuit also describes arrangements involving Davis’s husband, son and a family trust.
Family property transfers can be lawful. The main legal question is whether these transactions were made to place assets beyond the reach of existing creditors.
Why the Transfers Are Being Challenged
Ermold and Moore rely on Kentucky law governing fraudulent transfers. Such laws may allow a court to undo a transaction made to delay, hinder or prevent a creditor from collecting a valid debt.
Their attorneys argue that Davis faced an existing federal judgment when the transfers occurred. They say the timing, transfers to relatives and alleged lack of payment support their claim that the assets were being shielded.
The complaint also challenges Davis’s sworn post-judgment responses dated December 3, 2025. According to the allegations, Davis stated that she owned no property, had no property interest, had not transferred gifts or assets exceeding $2,000 during the relevant period and was not a trust beneficiary.
The plaintiffs say those answers failed to reveal the earlier transactions. Davis disputes that account. In a statement reported by WKYT, Liberty Counsel said she provided documents and answered the plaintiffs’ questions truthfully. The organisation previously represented Davis but is not currently representing her in this property case.
What the Lawsuit Is Asking For
The couple wants the Rowan Circuit Court to declare the transfers void. If that happens, ownership could return to its earlier position, allowing the plaintiffs’ judgment lien to attach to Davis’s share.
They also seek restrictions against further asset transfers and enforcement of the unpaid judgment. The lawsuit does not automatically give the couple ownership of the land. Further collection proceedings or a possible court-approved sale may be necessary.
What Happens Next?
As of July 29, 2026, no final ruling had been reported. Davis and the other defendants will have an opportunity to answer the complaint and contest its claims.
The court may examine deeds, estate documents, trust records, transaction dates and Davis’s sworn responses. The central issue is no longer whether the original marriage-licence denial violated the couple’s rights; that federal judgment remains in place. The question is whether Davis lawfully arranged her inheritance or improperly transferred assets to prevent Ermold and Moore from collecting the amount awarded.