Opinion ID: 1330405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Augmented Estate

Text: Appellant asserts this Court should set up a constructive trust to prevent Appellee from being unjustly enriched by those assets the testator owned prior to the marriage. [28] However, in the 1992 statutory revisions, the legislature set forth what assets are to be included in an augmented estate, and we adhere to those legislative mandates. See W. Va.Code § 42-3-2 (Supp. 1992) (setting forth the elements of an augmented estate). Although we decline to set up a constructive trust in favor of Appellant, we nevertheless find the circuit court erred as a matter of law in the manner it applied West Virginia Code § 42-3-2 to the joint tenancy property. In its order entered on July 27, 1995, the circuit court correctly indicated the augmented estate includes [t]he value of the decedent's probate estate...., which consists of property, whether real or personal, movable or immovable, wherever situated, that would pass by intestate succession if the decedent died without a valid will. W. Va. Code § 42-3-2(b)(1) [29] ; W. Va.Code § 42-3-2(a)(1)(iv). The circuit court then found that, because the Decedent's property acquired before his marriage would pass by intestate succession under West Virginia Code section 42-1-2(a) (Supp.1995), if the decedent died without a valid will, that property should also be included in the Decedent's probate estate under section 42-3-2(a)(1)(iv) (Supp.1995). [30] The circuit court included among the assets of the augmented estate certain monies and certificates of deposit (hereinafter CDs) held by Appellant and his father as joint tenancy property. Appellant states that some of the CDs were titled jointly in his and his father's name prior to his father's marriage to Appellee and other CDs were purchased and titled jointly in his and his father's name during the course of the marriage. It also appears from the record that a savings account was titled jointly in both Appellant and his father's name. Contrary to the circuit court's findings that all assets should be included as part the probate estate, West Virginia Code § 42-3-2(b) and (d) (Supp.1992) clearly treat separately those assets which were held jointly with a right of a survivorship with someone other than the surviving spouse. As the circuit court did not address in its order the impact these provisions would have on the various joint tenancy property and these issues are not adequately briefed by the parties on appeal, it is necessary for us to remand this issue for further consideration. [31] Indeed, it may be necessary for the circuit court to hold an additional evidentiary hearing in order to determine precisely (1) what assets the testator and Appellant held as joint tenancy property, (2) when those assets were acquired, and (3) what amount, if any, of those assets should be included as part of the augmented estate under the relevant statutory provisions. [32]