Attorneys for denied-marriage couple allege Kim Davis hid assets to avoid paying about $570,000

A couple who say they were denied a marriage license by former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis more than a decade ago have renewed their efforts to collect payments they say Davis still owes, alleging in recent federal filings that Davis misrepresented her assets to avoid satisfying a nearly $570,000 obligation to the couple and their attorneys.

According to July court documents filed in the U.S. District Court, the couple’s attorneys contend Davis covered up financial holdings despite a court order requiring payment related to the earlier refusal of the license. The filings describe the couple’s position that the amount owed includes obligations to the plaintiffs and attorney-related costs, totaling roughly $570,000.

The allegations focus on what the couple says Davis told the court about her finances during the period when payment was being sought. The couple’s legal team argues that Davis’s statements did not match her actual ability to pay and that any failure to disclose assets was intended to prevent satisfaction of the judgment.

The dispute traces back to the Rowan County clerk’s refusal to issue marriage licenses, a decision that previously led to litigation and court proceedings. In the years since, the couple’s attorneys have pursued enforcement, and the new filings seek to move the case toward remedies they say are necessary to ensure the obligations are actually paid.

The July filings assert that Davis’s conduct undermined the collection process and delayed payment to the couple. The documents also describe how their attorneys calculated the total at issue, and they frame the current request as part of making the couple and their lawyers whole after a legal process they say resulted in a payment obligation.

It remains for the federal court to decide what, if any, consequences follow from the allegations. Davis has not been described in the provided material as conceding wrongdoing, and the court’s next steps, including any hearings or orders related to enforcement, were not detailed in the reporting provided.

The case continues to be watched as a test of how judgments stemming from marriage-licensing litigation are enforced when plaintiffs believe a defendant has not fully complied. The filings add a financial-accountability dispute on top of the underlying controversy over the clerk’s earlier conduct.