Court Opinion

ID: 9854403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:07:07.924094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:04.095330
License: Public Domain

NEELY, Justice,
dissenting in part:
The injustice of today’s holding is re-, quired by the majority’s opinion in Whiting v. Whiting, 183 W.Va. 451, 396 S.E.2d 413 (1990). Basically, a woman brings money to the marriage; the husband runs off with a younger woman; and, the money that the wife brought to the marriage in the hope of providing security for her children, is used to keep the home wrecker in high style.
Mrs. Wood, a dutiful wife and mother for over seventeen years, was rejected by her husband for a younger woman and a new family. Not satisfied with leaving his first family of three children, ages 11, 5 and 3, Mr. Wood even used the money Mrs. Wood received as a gift from her grandfather to set up his new life. Humiliated, impoverished and held up to obloquy, ridicule and contempt by her husband, Mrs. Wood’s sojourn seeking justice collides with our recent holding in Whiting, id., which began redistributing property by eschewing the equitable distribution statute. See Whiting, id. (Neely, C.J., dissenting); Koontz v. Koontz, 183 W.Va. 477, 396 S.E.2d 439 (1990) (Neely, C.J., dissenting); Tallman v. Tallman, 183 W.Va. 491, 396 S.E.2d 453 (1990) (Neely, C.J., dissenting) for my criticism of the majority’s rationale and statutory interpretation.
Following Whiting’s flawed rationale and statutory interpretation, the majority transforms Mrs. Wood’s inheritance from her mother and a gift from her grandfather into unconditional gifts in which Mr. Wood has an equal share. Although I agree that the marital home became marital property, subject to unequal distribution because of Mrs. Wood’s contribution of $40,000 (See Koontz, supra 183 W.Va. at 483, 396 S.E.2d at 445, for a discussion of the factors that should be considered to determine if property should be considered marital property), the gift of about $30,000 from Mrs. Wood’s grandfather should remain Mrs. Wood’s separate property. Mr. Wood’s physical and monetary intimidation of Mrs. Wood should not be rewarded with any part of her grandfather’s gift. Because the majority’s holding, based on Whiting, unjustly furthers the impoverishment of Mrs. Wood and her children, I dissent from Part II.