Court Opinion

ID: 9605787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:42:01.953571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:12.305397
License: Public Domain

Haden, Chief Justice,

concurring:

I respectfully concur with the decision to award the writ of prohibition but question the scope of the opinion prepared by Justice Neely for the Court.
Although I am in sympathy with the goals of the draftsman, I believe Part II of the Court’s opinion is wholly obiter dicta since the only question before the Court was whether prohibition should be awarded to prevent enforcement of a void award of alimony made to an offending party in a divorce action. Accordingly, while I recognize that syllabus points 4. and 5. correctly state the law of this jurisdiction, I believe those statements are not part of the law of this case.
Certain other statements of legal propositions relating to the severability of alimony awards and contractual agreements for maintenance of a party are overbroad and do not distinguish situations wherein the law treats contractual agreements for support as merged into judicial awards of alimony. See the majority’s discussion of Miller v. Miller, supra and Farley v. Farley, supra, and the conclusion which follows. As to the majority’s discussion of a court’s ability to construe a contract, I believe that interpretation is not authorized unless the contract in question is first determined to be ambiguous. Plain provisions in a contract should be applied, not con*267strued. State ex rel. Ashworth v. State Road Commission, 147 W. Va. 430, 128 S.E.2d 471 (1962).
I am hopeful that this Court will have the opportunity to examine more precisely the gratuitous discussion of principles contained in Part II of the majority opinion on an occasion when those matters are presented for resolution.
I am authorized to state that Justice Sprouse joins in this concurring opinion.