A recent ruling from the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia addresses an appeal in a divorce case, offering a mixed bag of outcomes for the appellant, Christopher M. (referred to as “Husband” in the court documents). The court affirmed some aspects of the lower court’s decision but also found errors that require the case to be sent back for further review.
The original case, filed in the Family Court of Harrison County, involved Christopher M. and his former wife, Lucia M. (“Wife”). The couple, married in 2008, separated in early 2024. They had four children, three of whom were minors at the time of the final order.
Background of the Case
The divorce proceedings began in March 2024. A temporary order was issued in April 2024, addressing several issues, including custody, child support, and possession of the marital home. The order awarded the Wife temporary possession of the marital home, granted the Husband parenting time every weekend, and set child support payments. It also addressed the return of the Wife’s vehicle, the Mazda, which the Husband was ordered to return.
The court appointed a guardian ad litem (a legal representative) for the children to investigate the situation and make recommendations. The guardian ad litem interviewed the parties, the children, and the Wife’s therapist. The guardian ad litem recommended that the children remain primarily with the Wife and that the Husband receive parenting time every other weekend, reflecting the children’s preferences.
Over the course of the following months, several motions and hearings took place. The Wife filed motions regarding the Husband’s compliance with the temporary order, specifically regarding financial disclosures and child support payments. The Husband, in turn, filed a petition alleging that the Wife had failed to make mortgage and vehicle payments.
A final divorce hearing was held in October 2024, and the Family Court issued an Amended Decree of Divorce on December 18, 2024. This amended order addressed property division, custody, child support, and spousal support. It is this amended decree that the Husband appealed.
The Appeal and the Court’s Findings
The Intermediate Court of Appeals reviewed the family court’s decision, applying the standard of review that considers the family court’s findings of fact for clear error, its application of law to the facts for an abuse of discretion, and questions of law de novo (anew).
The Husband’s appeal presented a challenge for the court, as his brief failed to clearly specify the errors he believed the lower court had made. However, the appellate court, acknowledging the Husband’s self-representation, attempted to address his arguments as best as possible.
The Court’s Specific Rulings
Guardian Ad Litem’s Report: The Husband argued that the family court erred by considering the guardian ad litem’s report. The appellate court found no error here. The court noted that the guardian ad litem had been properly appointed, her report was filed, and the Husband had been given the opportunity to question her.
Custody: The Husband challenged the custody arrangement, arguing that the court improperly considered the children’s preferences. The appellate court disagreed. It cited West Virginia law, which allows consideration of the children’s preferences, especially those over 14 years old. The court found that the family court had properly considered the children’s wishes, along with the considerable distance between the parents’ residences, in its decision. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the family court’s allocation of custody.
Child Support: The Husband argued the child support amount was incorrect. The appellate court found no error here, deferring to the family court’s factual findings and credibility determinations.
Spousal Support: The appellate court agreed with the Husband that the family court erred in its spousal support determination. The court found that the family court had based its decision, in part, on an incorrect income finding. The appellate court remanded this issue, instructing the family court to recalculate spousal support using the correct income figures.
Equitable Distribution: The Husband argued that the family court improperly included the Wife’s student loans in the equitable distribution calculation. The appellate court agreed with the Husband, noting that the Wife had agreed to take responsibility for her student loans as her separate debt. The court remanded this issue, instructing the family court to exclude the student loans and recalculate the property division.
The Outcome
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s decisions on the guardian ad litem’s report, custody, and child support. However, it vacated parts of the family court’s order regarding spousal support and equitable distribution. The case was remanded to the family court with instructions to correct the income figures used in the spousal support calculation and to exclude the Wife’s student loans from the property division.