Opinion ID: 1264874
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction of Lower Court to Enter 1998 Order

Text: The Appellee contends that the lower court acted properly and within its jurisdiction in 1998 by setting aside a 1991 dissolution of marriage. This contention somewhat paradoxically assumes that an individual who had been divorced for seven years, with only property and alimony issues still pending before the court, would, upon the death of his ex-spouse, maintain that the divorce had never been accomplished. The Appellee would assert that the litany of lower court orders from 1991 through 1998 reveals an intention to void the marriage dissolution by entering an order staying the property issue in 1992, in response to the Appellee's Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Property Provisions of the Final Decree, or, at the very least, that no dissolution was ever accomplished due to the partial stay of the final order entered in 1992. We disagree with the Appellee's characterization of the impact of lower court orders in this matter. This Court has consistently observed that a circuit court does not infinitely retain subject matter jurisdiction over a divorce case. As this Court explained in State ex rel. Watson v. Rodgers, 129 W.Va. 174, 39 S.E.2d 268 (1946), circuit courts have no inherent powers in divorce cases; rather, the circuit court has only the specified statutory powers assigned to it in such matters. Id. at 176, 39 S.E.2d at 269. [3] In Crouch v. Easley, 119 W.Va. 208, 192 S.E. 690 (1937), this Court specified that in a divorce suit which does not involve minor children, maintenance or property rights, a decree of divorce a vinculo terminates the suit because the marital relation is the only subject before the court. In syllabus point two of Segal v. Beard, 181 W.Va. 92, 380 S.E.2d 444 (1989), this Court again addressed this issue as follows: A circuit court lacks jurisdiction under W.Va.Code, 48-2-15(e) [1986] to modify a divorce decree when the modification proceeding does not involve alimony, child support or child custody. The issue of continued subject matter jurisdiction was discussed by this Court in State ex rel. Ravitz v. Fox, 166 W.Va. 194, 273 S.E.2d 370 (1980), wherein this Court reasoned as follows: We note initially that the relator does not dispute subject matter jurisdiction and recognizes that the circuit court originally granting a divorce is vested with continuing subject matter jurisdiction under W.Va.Code § 48-2-15 to modify or alter its original order as to alimony and child support, as the altered circumstances of the parties and the needs of the children may require. See, e. g., Syl. pt. 6, In re Estate of Hereford, 162 W.Va. 477, 250 S.E.2d 45 (1978) (child support subject to continuing judicial modification); State ex rel. Trembly v. Whiston, 159 W.Va. 298, 220 S.E.2d 690 (1975) (child custody agreement merged in decree did not preclude change in custody). Although the divorce portion of the decree becomes final, we recognized in Acord v. Acord, 164 W.Va. 562, 264 S.E.2d 848 (1980), that the circuit court has continuing jurisdiction to reopen the judgment and modify the decree as to other matters pursuant to the provisions of W.Va.Code § 48-2-15. 166 W.Va. at 197, 273 S.E.2d at 372 (emphasis supplied). It is the dissolution of the marriage which is the primary focus of the divorce action. As the Colorado court observed in In re Marriage of Connell, 870 P.2d 632 (Colo.Ct. App.1994), [T]he court's power to issue orders relative to property and support is merely incidental to the primary object of dissolving the parties' marital status. Id. at 633. In that vein, the Colorado court, in Hubbard v. District Court, 192 Colo. 98, 556 P.2d 478 (1976), addressed the issue of a motion for a new trial filed regarding only a portion of the various issues involved in the underlying divorce action and held that the divorce decree was final to terminate the parties' marital status where the husband died after the district court granted a new trial on the permanent orders, but not on the decree of dissolution itself. The Hubbard court explained: [W]hen the parties challenge only the permanent orders relating to marital property in their motions for a new trial, that portion of the decree dissolving their marriage remains unaffected and becomes final at the expiration of the time within which the parties can move for a new trial on that issue. In this case, the district court no longer had jurisdiction to set aside the dissolution decree after the parties failed to file a timely motion for a new trial on whether the marriage was irretrievably broken. Id. at 481 (footnote omitted). [4] Reviewing courts have also recognized that no violation of Rule 54(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure occurs and no question of the finality of an order is raised in a divorce action where the trial court leaves an issue unresolved but nevertheless issues a final decree. See Garabedian v. Garabedian, 1990 WL 179592,  (Ohio App. 12 Dist.). [5] In Dixon v. American Indus. Leasing Co., 157 W.Va. 735, 205 S.E.2d 4 (1974), applicable only by analogy, this Court found as follows as syllabus point six: Where a court, by an order in the first instance, disposes of multiple claims and adjudicates all controversies, but a party by a Rule 59(e) R.C.P. motion asks the court to alter or amend the order as to one of the claims, but not the other, the Rule 59(e) motion extends the time of finality of the order as it relates to the claim contained in the 59(e) motion until the Rule 59(e) motion is determined, but the order in the first instance is final as to the other claims determined therein, and the time for appeal as to that claim runs from the entry of the order in the first instance. An evaluation of the marital status of parties subsequent to the death of one of the ex-spouses was addressed in Estate of Burford v. Burford, 935 P.2d 943 (Colo.1997). A divorce had been granted prior to the husband's death, but financial matters remained unresolved in the dissolution proceedings at the time of the husband's death. The Colorado court held that the decree of dissolution dissolved the marriage of the parties even though the decree was not final for purposes of appellate review. Id. at 955. The court further explained: The marital status of the parties was dissolved; the parties were no longer husband and wife. Thereafter, when the husband died before the date of the permanent orders hearing, the dissolution action did not abate, and the district court properly maintained jurisdiction over the marital estate to conduct hearings to resolve financial matters raised in the dissolution proceedings. The probate court was correct in precluding the wife's claim in the husband's estate as a surviving spouse. Id. In the present case, we conclude that the lower court acted within its authority in 1992 by granting a partial stay of the 1991 final order, pursuant to the Appellee's request for a stay on the property division issues. Through that action, however, the lower court retained jurisdiction of only the property issues which had been stayed. The underlying marital dissolution was not challenged; nor was a stay requested or granted on that issue. The partial stay, relating to property matters, had no effect upon the actual dissolution of the marriage between the parties. The marriage was dissolved by the 1991 order; only property issues remained unresolved. While the issues of property distribution had been left open and alimony arrearages had been contentiously debated, the validity of the actual dissolution of the marriage was never contested. It was settled by the 1991 order; the 1992 order did not affect the dissolution of the marriage; and the issue was not subject to resurrection by the lower court in 1998. We find that the 1998 order was void [6] and that the 1991 order declaring the dissolution of the marriage was in effect at the time of Mrs. Clark's death in 2000.