Court Opinion

ID: 9963235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 19:14:44.453984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:43.831785
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
                                                                             FILED
                                                                          April 24, 2024
JESSICA LONGERBEAM,
                                                                       ASHLEY N. DEEM, DEPUTY CLERK
Petitioner Below, Petitioner                                          INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                             OF WEST VIRGINIA

v.) No. 23-ICA-285          (Fam. Ct. of Kanawha Cnty. No. 23-D-267)

JOSHUA LONGERBEAM,
Respondent Below, Respondent

                             MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Jessica Longerbeam (“Wife”) appeals the Family Court of Kanawha
County’s May 31, 2023, Final Divorce Order which ordered her to pay $1,500.00 to
Respondent Joshua Longerbeam (“Husband”) for reimbursement of his tax refund that the
court found was intercepted to pay Wife’s child support arrearages to a third party.
Husband did not file a response. The court appointed guardian ad litem for Husband filed
a response in support of the family court’s decision.1 Wife did not file a reply.

        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 that there is error in the family court’s decision. This case
satisfies the “limited circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d) of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure for a memorandum decision. For the reasons set forth below, the family court’s
decision as it relates to Husband’s tax refund is vacated.

       The parties were married on or about March 19, 2015, and separated on or about
December 10, 2017. On March 29, 2023, Wife filed a petition for divorce. There were no
children born of the marriage, and Husband has no children, but Wife has a child from a
previous relationship. On May 31, 2023, the family court held a final hearing on Wife’s
divorce petition. Wife appeared in person and unrepresented for the final hearing. Husband
appeared by court-appointed guardian ad litem due to being incarcerated and was not
present for the final hearing either in person, telephonically, or electronically.

       1
        Jessica Longerbeam is self-represented. Charles M. Love, IV, Esq. was appointed
as guardian ad litem for Joshua Longerbeam due to Mr. Longerbeam’s status as an
incarcerated individual.

                                              1
        At the beginning of the final hearing, the guardian ad litem and Wife were sworn in
to testify by the family court.2 The guardian ad litem testified that he had met with Husband
twice during the divorce proceedings and that Husband informed him that Husband
received a $3,000.00 tax refund during the parties’ marriage that was intercepted to pay
Wife’s child support arrearages owed to a third party. Wife testified that although she did
owe child support arrearages to a third party during the parties’ marriage, she was not aware
of an intercept. She further testified that she was the only party ever employed during the
marriage, and that Husband had never worked. Wife’s testimony revealed that during the
parties’ marriage, particularly between the years of 2015 and 2017, both parties were “in
and out of jail” and she only worked for a “couple of months” during that time. Wife
testified that she had never filed a tax return until 2023 and was unaware that Husband
received a tax refund during their marriage. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the
guardian ad litem moved the family court for a $3,000.00 judgment on behalf of Husband
regarding the tax refund. Based on the guardian ad litem’s testimony, the family court
found Husband to be more credible on the issue of the tax refund and awarded him
judgment in the amount of $1,500.00 since “[Wife] said she didn’t work, and he worked.”
Wife asserted to the family court that the court misunderstood her testimony because
“[Husband] worked nothing at all.” The family court stated that it “heard what [Wife] said,
but out of fairness to [Husband,] [the court was] going to give him that judgment.”

       The family court’s May 31, 2023, Final Divorce Order, did not award either party
spousal support.3 The order stated that the parties owned no marital property, owed no
marital debts, and had no retirements or pensions subject to equitable distribution. The
court found that Husband’s tax refund was intercepted due to Wife’s child support
arrearage owed to a third party and awarded Husband a judgment against Wife in the
amount of $1,500.00. It is from the family court’s May 31, 2023, order that Wife now
appeals.

       For this matter, our standard of review is as follows:

              “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

       2
         West Virginia Trial Court Rule 21.03 states that “[a] guardian ad litem shall make
a full and independent investigation of the facts involved in the proceeding and make
recommendations to the court by testimony or in writing, unless otherwise ordered by the
court.” (emphasis added).
       3
         The record reflects that Husband, through his guardian ad litem, moved the family
court for an award of spousal support, which was ultimately denied. Wife waived her right
to receive spousal support.

                                             2
      standard, and the application of law to the facts under an abuse of discretion
      standard. We review questions of law de novo.” Syl., [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 a family court order).

       On appeal, Wife asserts one assignment of error. She contends that the family court
erred by awarding judgment to Husband in the amount of $1,500.00 because Husband
presented insufficient evidence for the family court to consider that his tax refund was
misappropriated or even existed.

      In Leann H. v. Theophilus C., No. 22-ICA-65, 2023 WL 152885, at *3 (W. Va. Ct.
App. Jan. 10, 2023) (memorandum decision), this Court stated the following:

      [A] family court’s jurisdiction is derived from West Virginia Code § 51-2A-
      2 (2018), and the limit on this authority is evident, based on subsection (e) of
      that statute, which explicitly states, [a] family court is a court of limited
      jurisdiction. A family court is a court of record only for the purpose of
      exercising jurisdiction in the matters for which the jurisdiction of the family
      court is specifically authorized in this section and in chapter 48 of this code.
      A family court may not exercise the powers given courts of record in § 51-
      5-1 of this code or exercise any other powers provided for courts of record
      in this code unless specifically authorized by the Legislature. A family court
      judge is not a “judge of any court of record” or a “judge of a court of record”
      as the terms are defined and used in § 51-9-1 et seq. of this code. See also
      Syl. Pt. 5, in part, Lindsie D.L. v. Richard W.S., 214 W. Va. 750, 591 S.E.2d
      308 (2003) (“[t]he jurisdiction of family courts is limited to only those
      matters specifically authorized by the Legislature[.]”).

Leann H., 2023 WL 152885, at *3.

Family courts have jurisdiction for all property distribution proceedings brought under
article seven of chapter forty-eight in the code. W. Va. Code § 51-2A-2(a)(15). The basic
premise is that a family court “shall divide the marital property of the parties equally
between the parties.” W. Va. Code § 48-7-101 (2001) (emphasis added). The same

                                             3
principle applies to marital debts. See Downey v. Kamka, 189 W.Va. 141, 144, 428 S.E.2d
769, 772 (1993).4

       Here, as evidenced by its May 31, 2023, Final Divorce Order, the family court made
the specific finding that no marital property existed between the parties;5 yet it then
awarded Husband half of the judgment requested by his guardian ad litem. Thus, we find
that the family court exceeded its limited statutory jurisdiction by distributing nonmarital
property.

       The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has stated that:

              “[i]t is well established that the issue of subject matter jurisdiction can
       be raised at any time, even sua sponte by this Court.” State ex rel. Universal
       Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 239 W. Va. 338, 345, 801 S.E.2d 216, 223
       (2017). “Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction over an issue is a
       question of law[.]” Snider v. Snider, 209 W. Va. 771, 777, 551 S.E.2d 693,
       699 (2001). Because “jurisdictional issues are questions of law, our review
       is de novo.” Wilson, 239 W. Va. at 343, 801 S.E.2d at 221 (citing Syl. Pt. 1,
       Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995)).

M.H. v. C.H., 242 W. Va. 307, 312, 835 S.E.2d 171, 176 (2019). Subject-matter jurisdiction
must exist as a matter of law for the court to act; consequently, any decree made by a court
lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is void. A.A. v. S.H., 242 W. Va. 523, n.44, 836 S.E.2d
490, n.44 (2019).

       4
        In syllabus point two of Stuck v. Stuck, 218 W.Va. 605, 625 S.E.2d 367 (2005),
the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held:

       Equitable distribution . . . is a three-step process. The first step is to classify
       the parties’ property as marital or nonmarital. The second step is to value the
       marital assets. The third step is to divide the marital estate between the parties
       in accordance with the principles contained in [former] W.Va. Code, 48-2-
       32 [now W.Va. Code § 48-7-103].” Syl. Pt. 1, Whiting v. Whiting, 183 W.
       Va. 451, 396 S.E.2d 413 (1990).
       5
        A court speaks through its orders. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
has long held that it is a paramount principle of jurisprudence that a court speaks only
through its orders. State ex rel. Erlewine v. Thompson, 156 W. Va. 714, 718, 207 S.E.2d
105, 107 (1973).

                                               4
        Accordingly, since we conclude that the family court did not have subject matter
jurisdiction to award a monetary judgment concerning nonmarital property, we decline to
address Wife’s specific assignment of error.

      Based on the foregoing, we vacate the Family Court of Kanawha County’s May 31,
2023, Final Divorce Order, only as it pertains to the $1,500.00 judgment award.

                                                                               Vacated.

ISSUED: April 24, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

                                           5