IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

January 2020 Term

_______________

No. 18-0627

_______________

MICHAEL R. CAMPBELL,

Petitioner Below, Petitioner

V.

JOANNA V. CAMPBELL,

Respondent Below, Respondent

_____________________________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County

The Honorable Charles E. King, Jr., Judge

Civil Action No. 2014-D-1722

REVERSED AND REMANDED

_____________________________________________

Submitted: January 15, 2020

Filed: February 24, 2020

James T. Cooper Keisha D. May

Law Office of James T. Cooper Ciccarello, Del Giudice & LaFon

Charleston, West Virginia Charleston, West Virginia

Attorney for the Petitioner Attorney for the Respondent

JUSTICE JENKINS delivered the Opinion of the Court.

FILED

February 24, 2020

released at 3:00 p.m.

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
i

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. “In reviewing a final order entered by a circuit court judge upon a 

review of, or upon a refusal to review, a final order of a family court judge, we review the 

findings of fact made by the family court judge under the clearly erroneous standard, and 

the application of law to the facts under an abuse of discretion standard. We review 

questions of law de novo.” Syllabus, Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 

(2004).

2. “In order to satisfy the requirement of a substantial change in 

circumstances necessary to grant a modification in support obligations, the change must 

be one which would not reasonably have been expected at the time of the divorce 

decree.” Syllabus point 4, Goff v. Goff, 177 W. Va. 742, 356 S.E.2d 496 (1987).

3. “The party petitioning for a modification of the support provisions of a 

divorce decree bears the burden of showing a substantial change of circumstances.” 

Syllabus point 3, Goff v. Goff, 177 W. Va. 742, 356 S.E.2d 496 (1987).
1

Jenkins, Justice:

The petitioner herein and petitioner below, Michael R. Campbell (“Mr. 

Campbell”), appeals from the June 11, 2018 order entered by the Circuit Court of 

Kanawha County. By that order, the circuit court affirmed the family court’s order 

denying Mr. Campbell’s motion to modify his spousal support obligation to his former 

wife, the respondent herein and respondent below, Joanna V. Campbell (“Ms. 

Campbell”). On appeal to this Court, Mr. Campbell argues that his current monthly 

spousal support obligation is greater than his current monthly retirement income and that 

the lower courts have erred by refusing to modify his spousal support obligation to an 

amount that is commensurate with his ability to pay. Upon a review of the parties’ 

arguments and briefs, the appendix record, and the pertinent authorities, we conclude that 

the circuit court erred by affirming the family court’s order that refused to modify Mr. 

Campbell’s spousal support obligation. Accordingly, we reverse the June 11, 2018 order 

of the Kanawha County Circuit Court and remand this case for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. and Ms. Campbell married in 1995 and were divorced in October 2015; 

no children were born of the marriage. While they were married, Ms. Campbell worked 

as a postal clerk for the United States Postal Service until approximately 2009, and Mr. 

Campbell worked for Union Carbide, which later became The Dow Chemical Company 
2

(“Dow”).1 In 2014, Mr. Campbell was offered, and accepted, an opportunity through 

Dow to work in Saudi Arabia for a minimum period of one year, up to a maximum period 

of three years. During this time, Mr. Campbell’s monthly income increased substantially, 

from $7,818.50 per month, when he worked for Dow in the United States, to $18,818.00

per month, working for Dow in Saudi Arabia. It is this inflated income amount upon 

which the family court calculated Mr. Campbell’s spousal support obligation of 

$5,900.00 per month during the parties’ divorce proceedings.

Although Mr. Campbell had planned to work until his mid-sixties, he 

ultimately retired from Dow at age 60, in February 2018, when his overseas employment 

contract ended, and the Saudi Arabian company with which he had been working did not 

offer him continued employment. As a result of his retirement, Mr. Campbell’s monthly 

income decreased2significantly to $4,778.54 per month.3 Consequently, Mr. Campbell’s 

 

1 The precise nature of Mr. Campbell’s employment with Dow is unclear 

from the record, but his job position has been described as a “Work Process LE” in his 

income tax filings pertaining to his foreign employment.

2 By contrast, Ms. Campbell’s monthly income has increased since Mr. 

Campbell’s retirement because she now receives $834.00 per month as her portion of Mr. 

Campbell’s Dow retirement benefits in addition to her $5,900.00 per month spousal 

support award.

3 When Mr. Campbell begins receiving Social Security retirement benefits 

at age 62, his monthly retirement income will remain the same because Dow is currently 

subsidizing Mr. Campbell’s monthly retirement income until he starts to receive Social 

Security benefits, at which time his supplemental income from Dow will cease.
3

continued monthly spousal support obligation of $5,900.00 exceeds his current monthly 

retirement income by $1,121.46 per month.

Given his reduction in income, Mr. Campbell filed a petition to modify his 

spousal support obligation in the Family Court of Kanawha County in January 2018. In 

support of his request for relief, Mr. Campbell recounted that his employment with Dow 

had ended, he was not offered a contract with the Saudi Arabian company with which he 

had been working with Dow, and, as a result, “there has been a substantial change in 

financial circumstances since the entry of the Final [Divorce] Order thereby entitling 

[him] to a modification of his alimony obligation.” Ms. Campbell opposed Mr. 

Campbell’s petition and requested discovery of his financial information, in response to 

which Mr. Campbell provided copies of his bank statements for his United States 

checking account,4federal and state income tax returns, and documents explaining the 

amount of his retirement income from Dow as well as the conditions attached thereto.5

 

4 Mr. Campbell subsequently also disclosed copies of his bank statements 

for his United States savings account and for a new bank account he opened in Thailand 

when he moved there following his retirement.

5 Such conditions included a confidentiality agreement, a nondisparagement provision, and a non-compete clause, which Mr. Campbell argued 

precludes his employment in a similar capacity with a competitor of Dow in the United 

States.
4

In support of her opposition to Mr. Campbell’s modification petition, Ms. 

Campbell submitted a statement of her monthly expenses, which totaled $7,968.08.6 

Included in Ms. Campbell’s monthly expenses are amounts for her mortgage payment for 

the parties’ former marital home, ownership of which Ms. Campbell received in the 

divorce; vehicle maintenance; and health insurance, as well as allowances for groceries

and personal care.

Following several evidentiary hearings, the family court, by order entered 

May 7, 2018, denied Mr. Campbell’s modification petition. In so ruling, the family court 

found that Mr. Campbell had failed “to prove that a substantial change of circumstances 

ha[s] occurred.” The family court based this finding, in part, upon Mr. Campbell’s 

purchase of a home in Thailand following his retirement, where he now resides with his 

new wife, and his use of savings he had amassed during his employment to fully fund the 

home’s purchase price of $150,000.00.7 The family court also cited that Mr. Campbell 

“has failed to provide the Court with necessary verifiable financial documentation to 

 

6 While Ms. Campbell claims that her monthly expenses for her single 

person household are $7,968.08, it appears that the monthly household expenses for both 

Mr. and Ms. Campbell when they were married and Mr. Campbell was working for Dow 

in the United States were approximately $4,400.00. Additionally, Mr. Campbell claimed 

during the instant modification proceeding that his current expenses for a household of 

two people living in Thailand are roughly $2,500.00 per month.

7 At the time of their divorce, the parties’ marital home and associated 

property, which included a second home in which Ms. Campbell’s mother resides, was 

valued at $138,000.00. Ms. Campbell received the marital home and all associated 

property in the divorce, including Mr. Campbell’s share of the equity therein.
5

support his request herein”8as an additional basis for refusing to reduce the amount of his 

spousal support obligation.

Mr. Campbell then appealed from the family court’s order to the Circuit 

Court of Kanawha County. By order entered June 11, 2018, the circuit court summarily 

affirmed the family court’s order. From this adverse decision, Mr. Campbell appeals to 

this Court.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The instant proceeding is before this Court on appeal from the circuit 

court’s order affirming the family court’s order denying Mr. Campbell’s petition to 

modify his spousal support award. We previously have held that,

[i]n reviewing a final order entered by a circuit court 

judge upon a review of, or upon a refusal to review, a final 

order of a family court judge, we review the findings of fact 

made by the family court judge under the clearly erroneous 

standard, and the application of law to the facts under an 

abuse of discretion standard. We review questions of law de 

novo.

Syl., Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004). See also Syl. pt. 2, Lucas 

v. Lucas, 215 W. Va. 1, 592 S.E.2d 646 (2003) (“In reviewing challenges to findings 

made by a family court judge that also were adopted by a circuit court, a three-pronged 

 

8 See supra note 4 and corresponding text regarding the financial 

information Mr. Campbell provided during the underlying proceedings.
6

standard of review is applied. Under these circumstances, a final . . . order is reviewed 

under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings are reviewed under 

a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law and statutory interpretations are 

subject to a de novo review.”). With respect to the specific issue presently before the 

Court, we have held that “[q]uestions relating to alimony . . . are within the sound 

discretion of the court and its actions with respect to such matters will not be disturbed on 

appeal unless it clearly appears that such discretion has been abused.” Syl., in part, 

Nichols v. Nichols, 160 W. Va. 514, 236 S.E.2d 36 (1977). In light of these standards, we 

consider the parties’ arguments.

III.

DISCUSSION

On appeal to this Court, Mr. Campbell assigns error to the lower courts’ 

orders denying his modification petition. In refusing his request to reduce his monthly 

spousal support obligation, the family court concluded that Mr. Campbell had not 

demonstrated a substantial change in his financial circumstances to support his 

modification petition, which decision the circuit court affirmed. Before this Court, Mr. 

Campbell again asserts that he has sustained a substantial change of circumstances, 

attributable to his reduced monthly income as a result of his retirement, sufficient to 

warrant a reduction in his support obligation. We agree that Mr. Campbell is entitled to a 

modification of his spousal support obligation.
7

At its most basic level, an award of spousal support is designed to provide 

for the care and maintenance of the payee spouse following the termination of the 

couple’s marriage: “[t]he sole purpose of an award of alimony is to provide for the 

support of a former spouse.” Syl. pt. 3, in part, Clay v. Clay, 182 W. Va. 414, 388 S.E.2d 

288 (1989). In awarding Ms. Campbell spousal support incident to the parties’ divorce, 

the family court considered the various statutory factors contributing to such an award. 

See generally W. Va. Code § 48-6-301 (LexisNexis 2015). The parties do not here 

quarrel regarding the family court’s initial award of spousal support to Ms. Campbell.

Nevertheless, a corollary component to an award of spousal support must

necessarily be the payor spouse’s ability to satisfy the payment thereof. To this end, the 

Legislature specifically has recognized that “[a]n award of spousal support shall not be 

disproportionate to a party’s ability to pay as disclosed by the evidence before the court.” 

W. Va. Code § 48-8-103(a) (LexisNexis 2015). Again, it appears that Mr. Campbell 

satisfied his monthly spousal support obligation ordered by the family court until 

immediately before his retirement when his income dramatically decreased.

Recognizing that people’s financial fortunes may not remain constant for 

perpetuity, the Legislature also has provided for the subsequent modification of a spousal 

support award should the parties’ circumstances so warrant:

At any time after the entry of an order pursuant to the 

provisions of this article, the court may, upon motion of either 

party, revise or alter the order concerning the maintenance of 
8

the parties, or either of them, and make a new order 

concerning the same, issuing it forthwith, as the altered 

circumstances or needs of the parties may render necessary to 

meet the ends of justice.

W. Va. Code § 48-8-103(b). Accord W. Va. Code § 48-5-701 (LexisNexis 2015) (“After 

the entry of a final divorce order, the court may revise the order concerning spousal 

support or the maintenance of the parties and enter a new order concerning the same, as 

the circumstances of the parties may require.”). We have interpreted the requisite criteria 

to make such a showing as follows: “In order to satisfy the requirement of a substantial 

change in circumstances necessary to grant a modification in support obligations, the 

change must be one which would not reasonably have been expected at the time of the 

divorce decree.” Syl. pt. 4, Goff v. Goff, 177 W. Va. 742, 356 S.E.2d 496 (1987). We 

further have held that courts are required “to consider the financial needs of the parties, 

their incomes and income earning abilities and their estates and the income produced by 

their estates in determining the amount of alimony to be awarded in a modification 

proceeding.” Syl. pt. 2, in part, Yanero v. Yanero, 171 W. Va. 88, 297 S.E.2d 863 (1982).

Finally, “[t]he party petitioning for a modification of the support provisions 

of a divorce decree bears the burden of showing a substantial change of circumstances.” 

Syl. pt. 3, Goff, 177 W. Va. 742, 356 S.E.2d 496. Accord Syl. pt. 7, in part, Lucas, 215 

W. Va. 1, 592 S.E.2d 646 (“The burden of proof to establish changed circumstances 

justifying reduction or termination of spousal support . . . remains upon the payor, as the 

party petitioning for modification.”).
9

Thus, in order to demonstrate his entitlement to a modification of his 

spousal support obligation, Mr. Campbell is required to prove “a substantial change of 

circumstances,” Syl. pt. 3, in part, Goff, 177 W. Va. 742, 356 S.E.2d 496, that was “not 

reasonably . . . expected at the time of the divorce decree,” Syl. pt. 4, in part, Goff, id.9 

Having reviewed the appendix record in this case, which contains the evidence presented 

to the family court in support of Mr. Campbell’s modification petition, as well as the 

family court’s original divorce order, we find that Mr. Campbell has sustained his burden 

of proof and is entitled to a modification of his spousal support obligation.

At the time of the parties’ divorce, Mr. Campbell was working overseas and 

earning almost two and one-half times the salary he received when he was working for 

Dow in the United States. This inflated income is the amount upon which Ms. 

Campbell’s spousal support award was calculated. Since that time, however, Mr. 

Campbell has retired from his former employment such that his current monthly income 

is approximately only one-fourth of the amount it was at its zenith. In actual terms, Mr. 

Campbell’s spousal support award exceeds his gross retirement income by $1,121.46 per 

month.

 

9 An additional factor to consider in determining whether a spousal support 

order should be modified is whether there exists an “explicit, well expressed, clear, plain 

and unambiguous provision . . . set forth in . . . the order granting the divorce” that 

precludes the modification of the family court’s spousal support award. W. Va. Code 

§ 48-6-201(b) (LexisNexis 2015). The parties do not contend, and we do not find, that 

such a restriction exists in this case.
10

Although the Legislature has recognized that

[p]ayments of spousal support are to be ordinarily made from 

a party’s income, but when the income is not sufficient to 

adequately provide for those payments, the court may, upon 

specific findings set forth in the order, order the party 

required to make those payments to make them from the 

corpus of his or her separate estate[,]

W. Va. Code § 48-8-103(a), this alternative payment option is not a viable solution in the 

case sub judice. At the current spousal support rate of $5,900.00 per month, Mr. 

Campbell would be required to spend the entirety of his monthly retirement income and 

expend additional monies from his savings reserves to fully satisfy his obligation, thus 

leaving him with no amount of his monthly retirement income from which to pay his own 

monthly expenses. Continuing payments in this manner would completely deplete Mr. 

Campbell’s savings after approximately three years, or less if he used a portion of these 

resources to satisfy his monthly needs, after which time he would have no estate corpus 

from which to meet his monthly spousal support deficiency, and, arguably, would again 

have to request a modification of his spousal support obligation. Insofar as the 

Legislature has cautioned that “[a]n award of spousal support shall not be 

disproportionate to a party’s ability to pay,” W. Va. Code § 48-8-103(a), it is clear that 

Mr. Campbell has demonstrated “a substantial change of circumstances,” Syl. pt. 3, in 

part, Goff, 177 W. Va. 742, 356 S.E.2d 496, sufficient to support a modification of his 

spousal support obligation because his current assets are not sufficient to fully satisfy the 

monthly amount of spousal support he has been ordered to pay.
11

Moreover, while the parties presumably recognized that Mr. Campbell 

likely would retire at some point in time, this fact does not appear to have been 

contemplated by the family court in its final order establishing the current spousal 

support obligation. Neither did the family court make an allowance for the instant 

scenario in which Mr. Campbell’s overseas employment ended sooner than the parties 

hoped or anticipated. In short, the family court’s monthly award of $5,900.00 spousal 

support to Ms. Campbell is simply to continue as ordered “until the death of either party 

or until such time as [Ms. Campbell] remarries.” No provision is included in the final 

divorce order for a change in Mr. Campbell’s monthly income attributable to the 

cessation of his overseas employment contract, his retirement, or for any other reason. 

As such, the current financial circumstances of Mr. Campbell were “not reasonably . . . 

expected at the time of the divorce decree,” Syl. pt. 4, in part, Goff, id., and, thus, provide 

further support for his modification petition.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the family court erred by 

denying Mr. Campbell’s petition to modify his spousal support award and that the circuit 

court erred by affirming the family court’s ruling. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit 

court’s order and remand this case to the family court for further proceedings to 

recalculate Mr. Campbell’s spousal support obligation, upon consideration of “the 

financial needs of the parties, their incomes and income earning abilities and their estates 
12

and the income produced by their estates.” Syl. pt. 2, in part, Yanero, 171 W. Va. 88, 297 

S.E.2d 863.

10

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the June 11, 2018 order of the Circuit 

Court of Kanawha County and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion.

Reversed and Remanded.

 

10 To the extent Mr. Campbell has raised assignments of error regarding 

specific items that the lower courts either allegedly failed to consider or misconstrued 

during the underlying modification proceedings, i.e., the effect of Mr. Campbell’s future 

receipt of Social Security retirement benefits and Ms. Campbell’s claims of having paid 

marital debts following the parties’ divorce, such issues should be addressed in the 

proceedings on remand in the course of recalculating Mr. Campbell’s spousal support 

obligation.