The construction and interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which requires de novo review in this Court. Monumental Life Ins. Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 294 S.W.3d 10, 19 (Ky. App. 2008); Bd. of Comm’rs of the City of Danville v. Davis, 238 S.W.3d 132, 135 (Ky. App. 2007). In Monumental, this Court addressed statutory construction, explaining a court’s role in interpreting a statute:

The primary purpose of judicial construction is to carry out the intent of the legislature. In construing a statute, the courts must consider the intended purpose of the statute-and the mischief intended to be remedied. A court may not interpret a statute at variance with its stated language. The first principle of statutory construction is to use the plain meaning of the words used in the statute. Statutes must be given a literal interpretation unless they are ambiguous and if the words are not ambiguous, no statutory construction is required. We lend words of a statute their normal, ordinary, everyday meaning. We are not at liberty to add or subtract from the legislative enactment or discover meanings not reasonably ascertainable from the language used. The courts should reject a construction that is unreasonable and absurd, in preference for one that is reasonable, rational, sensible and intelligent.

Monumental, 294 S.W.3d at 19 (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

FROM:
HARRISON (MARGARET), ET AL.
VS.
PARK HILLS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT , ET AL.
OPINION AFFIRMING
LAMBERT (PRESIDING JUDGE)
STUMBO (CONCURS) AND SHAKE (SENIOR STATUS JUDGE)(CONCURS)
2009-CA-001981-MR
TO BE PUBLISHED
KENTON
1/7/2011

****************************************

Matters of statutory construction are subject to de novo review and this Court is not bound by the trial court’s interpretation. Halls Hardwood Floor Co. v. Stapleton, 16 S.W.3d 327, 330 (Ky. App. 2000).    However, when there are questions of fact, or mixed questions of law and fact, we review the trial court’s decision pursuant to the clearly erroneous standard. Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336, 354 (Ky. 2003). Under this standard, this Court will only set aside the findings of fact of the trial court if those findings are clearly erroneous. The dispositive question is whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Id.

CARDIOVASCULAR SPECIALISTS, P.S.C.
VS.
NICHOLAOS XENOPOULOS, M.D.
OPINION VACATING AND REMANDING
KELLER (PRESIDING JUDGE)
STUMBO (CONCURS) AND MOORE (CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY)
2009-CA-001442-MR
TO BE PUBLISHED
JEFFERSON