Brian Davis v. Starla Davis, 22-ica-153

Parties divorced in 2011; original spousal support ordered at $1,100/month.
On May 17, 2022, Brian Davis filed to modify/terminate spousal support, citing knee injury, retirement, disability, and reduced ability to pay; he has since remarried.
Family court held a hearing Sept. 8, 2022 and entered an order Sept. 12, 2022 reducing support to $475/month.
Family court found monthly incomes of $4,236 (Brian) and $4,318.70 (Starla); concluded Brian had $20,000 in liquid assets and Starla had none, and calculated disposable-income figures showing Brian with greater excess funds.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals found the liquid-asset finding reversed (the parties’ statements show Starla has $20,000 and Brian has none), and that the family court improperly relied on equalizing disposable income; the order was reversed and remanded for recalculation and reevaluation under statutory factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the family court miscalculated parties' liquid assets	Davis: court incorrectly found he had $20,000 and Starla had none; asset finding is wrong and drove the award	Starla: court properly considered assets and other factors in support of modification	Court: clear error in asset calculation; parties’ statements show Starla had $20,000 and Davis had none; reverse and remand to correct assets
Whether the court properly evaluated financial need and allowed/deducted expenses	Davis: court failed to consider certain expenses (farming, mortgage, attorney-fee loan, tax prep) and ignored his financial need	Starla: court considered appropriate expenses and struck unreasonable items (e.g., excess home repair, pet care)	Court: remand for further evaluation of need under WV Code §48-6-301(b) and relevant case law because asset error affected the analysis
Whether equalizing disposable income may justify spousal support modification	Davis: court relied on nearly equalizing disposable income to set $475 payment, which is improper	Starla: court’s income comparisons support its decision	Court: held that equalizing income cannot be the sole or major purpose of spousal support (citing Stone); court erred in relying on that rationale and remanded

Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004) (standard of review for family court findings and legal application)
Campbell v. Campbell, 243 W. Va. 71, 842 S.E.2d 440 (2020) (change in circumstances must be unexpected and guide modification analysis)
Goff v. Goff, 177 W. Va. 742, 356 S.E.2d 496 (1987) (requirements for substantial change in circumstances)
Yanero v. Yanero, 171 W. Va. 88, 297 S.E.2d 863 (1982) (courts should consider parties’ financial needs, incomes, earning abilities, and estates)
Stone v. Stone, 200 W. Va. 15, 488 S.E.2d 15 (1997) (spousal support may not be awarded solely to equalize incomes)