Court Opinion

ID: 9368120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 20:12:03.55736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.754049
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                                                                               FILED
MIRANDA B.,                                                               February 2, 2023
Petitioner Below, Petitioner                                               EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                         INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

vs.) No. 22-ICA-130 (Fam. Ct. Roane Cnty. No. 21-D-31)                         OF WEST VIRGINIA

TIMOTHY O.,
Respondent Below, Respondent

                             MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Miranda B. 1 appeals the Family Court of Roane County’s September 6,
2022, “Order from Final Hearing Bifurcated Issues.” Miranda B. asserts that the family
court clearly erred and abused its discretion in awarding permanent spousal support in the
amount of $1,750 per month to the respondent. Respondent Timothy O. timely responded
in support of the family court ruling. Miranda B. did not file a reply. 2

       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, we find that there is error in the family court’s decision but no substantial
question of law. The case is appropriate for disposition in a memorandum decision. For the
reasons set forth below, we remand this case to the family court for further proceedings
consistent with this decision.

        In its September 6, 2022, order, the family court awarded Timothy O. both child
support and permanent spousal support. With respect to spousal support, the court
discussed the spousal support factors set forth in West Virginia Code § 48-6-301 (2018).
The court found that an award of spousal support was appropriate due to Miranda B.’s
infidelity, her use of controlled substances, and because Timothy O. performed the majority

       1
         To protect the confidentiality of the juvenile involved in this case, we refer to the
parties’ last name by the first initial. See, e.g., W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e); State v. Edward
Charles L., 183 W. Va. 641, 645 n. 1, 398 S.E.2d 123, 127 n. 1 (1990).
       2
        Miranda B. is represented by Erica Brannon Gunn, Esq. Timothy O. is represented
by Leah R. Chappell, Esq. The guardian ad litem, Leslie L. Maze, Esq., filed a short
response indicating that her participation was not necessary given the singular issue of
spousal support on appeal herein.

                                              1
of the child-rearing functions, which had benefitted Miranda B.’s career. The court found
that Timothy O. demonstrated financial need over and above the amount of child support
he would receive.

       However, while the family court did discuss the statutory factors, it is unclear from
the order how the family court arrived at the amount of $1,750 per month and why the
court decided to make this a permanent award. From a review of various factual findings
in the order, this amount appears to exceed Miranda B.’s available income. Specifically,
the family court found that her net monthly earnings are $5,513 while her monthly expenses
(not counting the spousal or child support obligations) total $4,285. In addition, the court
ordered her to pay $857.58 per month in child support until the parties’ child graduates
from high school, resulting in a negative monthly balance of approximately $1,380.

       Generally, we review a family court appeal pursuant to the standards set forth by
the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in the Syllabus of Carr v. Hancock, 216
W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004). However, such standards contemplate sufficient
findings of fact and conclusions of law to facilitate a meaningful review. The Supreme
Court has said that to properly review an order of a family court:

              “The order must be sufficient to indicate the factual and legal basis
       for the [family court]’s ultimate conclusion so as to facilitate a meaningful
       review of the issues presented.” Province v. Province, 196 W. Va. 473, 483,
       473 S.E.2d 894, 904 (1996); see also Nestor v. Bruce Hardwood Flooring,
       L.P., 206 W. Va. 453, 456, 525 S.E.2d 334, 337 (1999) (“[O]ur task as an
       appellate court is to determine whether the circuit court’s reasons for its order
       are supported by the record.”). “Where the lower tribunals fail to meet this
       standard- i.e., making only general, conclusory, or inexact findings-we must
       vacate the judgment and remand for further findings and development.”
       Province, 196 W. Va. at 483, 473 S.E.2d at 904.

Collisi v. Collisi, 231 W. Va. 359, 363-64, 745 S.E.2d 250, 254-55 (2013) (per curiam).

       Here, the family court’s September 6, 2022, order does not contain sufficient
findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its decision to award Timothy O. $1,750
per month in permanent spousal support given Miranda B.’s net monthly income and
expenses. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the family court with directions to issue
a new order that includes detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law to permit
meaningful appellate review by establishing and justifying how the amount and duration
of Timothy O.’s permanent spousal support was determined. The Clerk is directed to issue
the mandate contemporaneously with this memorandum decision.

                                                                  Remanded with Directions.

                                              2
ISSUED: February 2, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge Thomas E. Scarr
Judge Charles O. Lorensen

                               3