Court Opinion

ID: 9962159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 20:24:38.106825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:56.162149
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
                                                                             FILED
                                                                          April 22, 2024
JAMES D.,
                                                                      ASHLEY N. DEEM, DEPUTY CLERK
Respondent Below, Petitioner                                          INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                             OF WEST VIRGINIA

v.) No. 23-ICA-469       (Fam. Ct. Putnam Cnty. No. FC-40-2016-D-205)

RANDI D.,
Petitioner Below, Respondent

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner James D.1 appeals the Family Court of Putnam County’s final child
support order entered on October 6, 2023, which reflects a monthly amount that was
agreed-upon by the parties. Respondent Randi D. filed a response in support of the family
court’s decision.2 James D. did not file a reply. The issues on appeal are whether the family
court wrongfully calculated child support by including James D.’s bonus as monthly
income and whether James D. received full credit for their children’s health insurance
costs.

       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 are the parents of two minor children, J.D. and O.D., born in 2008 and
2010, respectively. Events leading up to this appeal began when Randi D. filed a petition
for modification of the parenting plan sometime in mid-2023. The petition for modification
was filed because James D. had relocated to Columbus, Ohio to pursue an employment
opportunity and was unable to continue exercising extended shared parenting.

      The modification hearing was held on August 2, 2023. At that hearing, James D.
provided evidence that his monthly income was $8,492.87. However, Randi D. argued that

       1
         To protect the confidentiality of the juveniles 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
        James D. is self-represented. Randi D. is represented by Jennifer Dickens
Ransbottom, Esq.
                                              1
James D. had received a yearly bonus of $21,226.93, and that the bonus should be included
in James D.’s income. The family court agreed and divided the $21,226.93 by twelve
months, which came to $1,768 per month in additional income for a total of $10,260.87
per month. Based upon those numbers, the basic shared child support formula calculated
James D.’s child support obligation to be $1,330.84 per month which was to be paid to
Randi D. on the first day of each month, effective May 1, 2023. The new child support
calculation was retroactive to the date of Randi D.’s filing; therefore, James D. was
automatically in arrears for several months as of the date of the hearing. The family court
entered its final modification order on September 25, 2023.

        On August 28, 2023, James D. filed a motion to reconsider the child support
calculation. In support of his motion, James D. alleged that a portion of his $21,226.93
bonus had been put into a 401(k) and should not have been considered in his child support
calculation, as it was not taxable and not readily available to him. The hearing on James
D.’s motion for reconsideration was held on October 5, 2023. The family court heard both
parties’ arguments and ran the child support formula both with and without including the
bonus income. The difference was $1,397.15 versus $1,321.95. The parties agreed to split
the difference, which came to $1,359.55 per month. The family court then subtracted
$66.31 for James D.’s transportation costs, and the final child support calculation totaled
$1,293.24 per month. The family court entered its child support order on October 6, 2023,
reflecting the parties’ agreement. It is from that order that James D. now appeals.

      For these matters, we apply the following standard of review:

      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., 248 W. Va. 130, 133, 887 S.E.2d 255, 258 (Ct. App. 2022);
accord W. Va. Code § 51-2A-14(c) (2005) (specifying standards for appellate court review
of family court orders).

        On appeal, James D. raises four closely related assignments of error, which we will
consolidate. See generally Tudor’s Biscuit World of Am. v. Critchley, 229 W. Va. 396, 402,
729 S.E.2d 231, 237 (2012) (allowing consolidation of related assignments of error). James
D. asserts that the family court failed to properly calculate his child support obligation.
More specifically, he contends that his $21,226.93 bonus income should not have been
included in his monthly income calculation and that the $55.11 amount shown for the
amount he pays for the children’s healthcare on the child support worksheet is also
incorrect. Upon review, we conclude that James D.’s argument lacks merit for the reasons
set forth below.

                                             2
        First, the family court properly calculated James D.’s child support obligation in
accordance with West Virginia Code § 48-1-230(1) (2008), which defines income as
“[c]ommissions, earnings, salaries, wages and other income due or to be due in the future
to an individual from his or her employer.” This definition would include James D.’s yearly
bonus. Next, James D. agreed to split the balance between both child support formulas and
agreed to the final child support calculation.

         In its October 6, 2023, child support order the family court stated:

         After the court heard the arguments of both parties and running the child
         support formula based upon using and not using the mandatory 401K bonus
         income, the court pointed out that the difference between the two formulas
         was $1397.15 vs. $1321.95 – around $75/month. The parties agreed to split
         the difference in the [two] formulas.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has held, “[o]nce a competent party makes
a settlement and acts affirmatively to enter into such settlement, his second thoughts at a
later time as to the wisdom of the settlement does not constitute good cause for setting it
aside.” Moreland v. Suttmiller, 183 W.Va. 621, 625, 397 S.E.2d 910, 914 (1990). In
accordance with Moreland, James D.’s complaint is not good cause for setting aside the
agreement and we decline to do so.

         Accordingly, we affirm the family court’s October 6, 2023, agreed child support
order.

                                                                                Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 22, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

                                               3