1 

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHRISTINA CAMPBELL, 

Petitioner Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 23-ICA-149 (Fam. Ct. Kanawha Cnty. No. 20-D-629) 

 

JAMES CAMPBELL, 

Respondents Below, Respondents 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Christina Campbell (“Wife”) appeals the Kanawha County Family 

Court’s February 7, 2023, “Final Order on Equitable Distribution.” In that order, the family 

court held that $44,650.00 of marital waste would be attributed to the Wife for the purpose 

of equitable distribution. Respondent James Campbell (“Husband”) filed a response in 

support of the family court’s order. 1

 Wife did not file a reply. 

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-

11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the 

applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For 

these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the family court’s order is appropriate 

under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

The parties were married in Kanawha County, West Virginia, on May 26, 2012. No 

children were born of the marriage, though both have children from prior relationships. On 

August 12, 2020, Wife filed for divorce based on irreconcilable differences. On August 26, 

2020, Husband filed his answer and counter-petition for divorce also asserting 

irreconcilable differences. Husband is a disabled veteran. Wife received payment as the 

caregiver for Husband and was the payee on the checks Husband received for his disability. 

On January 19, 2021, this matter came on for a hearing before the family court. At 

the hearing, counsel for Husband raised the issue of marital waste by Wife. During 

testimony by Wife, the family court became frustrated due to the lack of clarity in Wife’s 

testimony regarding various transactions and the considerable amount of unexplained 

expenditures made from the parties’ accounts. The family court made it clear on the record 

that it wanted a clear picture of the parties’ finances and urged the parties to make full 

1 Christina Campbell is represented by Chris Pritt, Esq. James Campbell is 

represented by Erica Lord, Esq. 

FILED

December 27, 2023

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

financial disclosures immediately. Following the conclusion of Wife’s testimony, the 

family court adjourned the hearing. 

The matter was next set for a hearing on June 2, 2021. However, at the outset of the 

hearing, counsel for Husband argued that despite the family court’s prior order requiring 

full disclosure of every financial account, Wife failed to provide statements for all 

accounts. As a result, the family court admonished Wife, ordered her to turn over 

statements from various accounts, and ordered Husband’s counsel to submit an invoice for 

attorney’s fees for counsel’s preparation for the hearing. Following the hearing, on the 

same day, the family court entered a Temporary Order which found that though Wife had 

provided documents related to a Chase Bank account to Husband pursuant to a prior order 

of the family court,2 she did not provide documents related to numerous other accounts that 

she should have known to provide because funds were transferred out of the Chase Bank 

account to these other accounts. Based on Wife’s failure to provide these documents, the 

family court ordered that she pay $1,500.00 in attorney’s fees within thirty days. Wife did 

not object to the award of attorney’s fees on the record and the Temporary Order, which 

was drafted by Wife’s counsel, does not note any objection to the award of attorney fees.

On April 19, 2022, Husband filed his Motion Regarding Marital Waste which 

alleged that: Wife was responsible for the parties’ finances during their marriage; in 

December of 2017, Husband’s mother gifted him $64,497.05; Wife transferred $30,000.00 

of the funds gifted to Husband by his mother to an account held only by Wife; Wife used 

the $30,000.00 for personal expenditures for herself and her children; Wife racked up 

thousands of dollars in credit card debt due to her excessive spending on things that did not 

benefit the marriage; Wife failed to disclose retirement accounts, investments accounts, 

and bank accounts; and Wife would play a “shell game” with marital funds by shuffling 

money between multiple accounts, often times incurring overdraft fees on the accounts. 

On March 28, 2022, the family court held another hearing. Husband appeared for 

the hearing with his counsel. Wife did not appear at the hearing, but her counsel did. Wife’s 

counsel informed the family court that his office apparently failed to inform Wife of the 

hearing. The family court noted that Wife previously testified and was cross-examined 

during a prior hearing. The family court ruled that it would not continue the hearing due to 

previous continuances granted by the family court. Counsel for Wife did not object to the 

hearing going forward. During the hearing, Husband testified that Wife transferred 

$30,000.00 from the $64,497.05 he was gifted by his mother into her own account and that 

he received no benefit from the $30,000.00. He also testified that there were checks written 

by Wife that he was unaware of and that he would probably never know the full extent of 

Wife’s dissipation of marital assets. On cross examination, Husband denied seeing any of 

the $30,000.00 being transferred back into the joint account. Wife’s counsel then spent 

2 The referenced prior order, if reduced to writing, is not included in the record 

before this Court. 
3

considerable time going over various transactions with Husband. When asked for 

clarification by the family court, Wife’s counsel argued that of the $30,000.00 that was 

transferred out, Wife transferred some of the funds back into the joint account, while others 

she did not. Husband’s counsel pointed out that often, when transfers were made back into 

the joint account, Wife would then withdraw that amount again. Husband further testified 

that due to his disability, Wife would handle the parties’ finances. 

On August 15, 2022, the family court entered its Order Regarding Marital Waste. 

In that order, the family court found that Wife: was in complete control of the parties’ bank 

accounts; spent money excessively; moved money continually from account to account,

often times overdrawing accounts and incurring substantial insufficient funds fees; spent a

substantial amount of the parties’ marital funds on her children from a previous 

relationship; transferred $30,000.00 of the money gifted to Husband by his mother into her 

own account and spent that money excessively on herself and her children and did not 

spend the monies for the benefit of the marital estate; wrote two checks in the amounts of 

$6,000.00 and $7,000.00 that were for her benefit alone; and incurred insufficient funds 

fees in the amount of $1,650.00 due to her excessive spending and the movement of monies 

back and forth from account to account. 

As a result of these findings, the family court ordered that $43,000.00 of 

unaccounted for funds, plus the total of $1,650.00 in accumulated overdraft fees, be 

attributed to Wife as assets already received for the purpose of equitable distribution. The 

family court then ordered the parties to attempt to work out the distribution of assets and 

debts in light of the family court’s ruling regarding martial waste and to submit an agreed 

order if the parties are able to come to an agreement. If the parties were unable to agree, 

the family court ordered them to submit proposed distributions to the family court within 

thirty days. The family court certified its August 15, 2022, order as a final appealable order. 

On September 17, 2022, Wife filed her notice of appeal of the August 15, 2022, 

order with this Court. The matter was assigned case number 22-ICA-109. On December 

21, 2022, Case No. 22-ICA-109 was dismissed as interlocutory since the marital waste 

issue was a part of the larger equitable distribution issue that had not yet been resolved by 

the family court.

On February 7, 2023, the family court entered its “Final Order on Equitable 

Distribution.” That order divided the assets and liabilities of the parties, attributing 

$44,650.00 in marital waste to Christina. The distribution resulted in the family court 

ordering Wife to pay Husband $7,460.05 to equalize the distribution. Wife now appeals. 

Although this appeal is technically of the February 7, 2023, order, the assignments of error 

concern the August 15, 2022, order regarding marital waste and the July 21, 2021, 

Temporary Order which awarded $1,500.00 in attorney’s fees to Husband for Wife’s 

failure to provide certain bank records. 
4 

For these matters, our standard of review is as follows: 

“In reviewing . . . 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. Pt., [in part,] Carr v. 

Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004). 

Amanda C. v. Christopher P., __ W. Va. __, __, 887 S.E.2d 255, 258 (Ct. App. Nov. 18, 

2022); accord W. Va. Code § 51-2A-14(c) (2005) (specifying standards for appellate court 

review of family court order). 

On appeal, Wife asserts three assignments of error. Because the first two 

assignments of error concern the factual findings of the family court, we will discuss them 

together. First, Wife asserts that the family court orders contain findings of fact that are not 

supported by the evidence. Specifically, Wife asserts that the family court’s finding that 

Wife transferred $30,000.00 into her own account and then spent that money on herself 

and her children is not supported by the evidence. Next, Wife asserts that the family court’s 

orders do not contain sufficient findings of fact. In this regard, Wife argues that the family 

court’s orders fail to describe in detail how Wife spent the money and incurred overdraft 

fees. Upon review, we disagree. “Under the clearly erroneous standard, if the findings of 

fact and the inferences drawn by [the family court] are supported by substantial evidence, 

such findings and inferences may not be overturned even if a [reviewing court] may be 

inclined to make different findings or draw contrary inferences.” Stephen L.H. v. Sherry 

L.H., 195 W. Va. 384, 395, 465 S.E.2d 841, 852 (1995) superseded by statute on other 

grounds. Here, although the account to which Wife transferred the $30,000.00 may have 

been a jointly titled account, Wife does not point to any evidence in the record that 

undermines Husband’s testimony and the family court’s finding that Wife was in complete 

control of the parties’ finances. Further, the issue of how the account was titled is irrelevant 

to the family court’s determination of the extent to which Wife “may have conducted . . . 

herself so as to dissipate or depreciate the value of the marital property of the parties[.]” 

W. Va. Code §48-7-103(4) (2001). Husband’s uncontroverted testimony was that Wife had 

control of the parties’ finances, the money was moved or spent, and that he saw no benefit 

from the same. Regarding how exactly the money was dissipated, under the facts of this 

case, it is difficult to imagine how the family court could make detailed findings about 

exactly how Wife used the funds in question. The only person who could have provided 

greater detail as to where the money went was Wife, who failed to appear for the March 

28, 2022, hearing.3

 Therefore, the findings of the family court are not clearly erroneous. 

3

 Although Wife’s counsel informed the family court that his office failed to inform 

Wife of the hearing, she does not assert on appeal that the failure of the family court to 

grant a continuance was error. Since she does not assert that this was error and it is not 
5

Finally, Wife asserts that the family court improperly awarded attorney’s fees in the 

July 21, 2021, Temporary Order. Wife argues that since she was never specifically ordered 

to turn over the financial records in question, the family court erred in awarding attorney’s 

fees. However, “[t]o preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must articulate it with 

such sufficient distinctiveness to alert a [lower court] to the nature of the claimed defect.” 

Syl. Pt. 2 State ex rel. Cooper v. Caperton, 196 W. Va. 208, 470 S.E.2d 162 (1996). “A 

litigant may not silently acquiesce to an alleged error, or actively contribute to such error, 

and then raise that error as a reason for reversal on appeal.” Syl. Pt. 1, Maples v. W. Virginia 

Dep’t of Com., Div. of Parks & Recreation, 197 W. Va. 318, 475 S.E.2d 410 (1996).

“Where objections were not shown to have been made in the trial court, and the matters 

concerned were not jurisdictional in character, such objections will not be considered on 

appeal.” Syl. Pt. 1, State Road Commission v. Ferguson, 148 W.Va. 742, 137 S.E.2d 206 

(1964). As previously mentioned, the Temporary Order of the family court, which was 

drafted by Wife’s counsel, does not note any objection to the award of attorney’s fees. 

Likewise, a review of the hearing recording reveals that no objection was made during the 

hearing to the award of attorney’s fees. Wife does not point to anywhere in the record that 

demonstrates that she objected to the award of attorney’s fees. Accordingly, since Wife did 

not properly preserve the issue for appeal, we decline to consider this assignment of error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the family court’s February 7, 2023, “Final Order on 

Equitable Distribution.”

Affirmed.

ISSUED: December 27, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear

Judge Thomas E. Scarr

Judge Charles O. Lorensen

evident from the record that this was error, the Court declines to apply the plain error 

doctrine.