Harold Lee Weaver v. Barbara Jo Weaver
20-0690
| W. Va. | Apr 15, 2022Background
- Parties married 14 years; Barbara filed for divorce in Aug. 2017; they have twin daughters (born 2003).
- Harold received Social Security disability (~$2,296/mo); Barbara worked part-time at their restaurant and was primary caregiver.
- Family court found Harold failed to provide full financial disclosures and attached an equitable distribution spreadsheet valuing the marital estate at over $580,000.
- Key asset valuations: marital home $205,000 (credited to Barbara), restaurant $185,000 (credited partly to Barbara), Jackson Street property $65,400, and an IRA ~ $260,000 (treated as entirely marital).
- Family court awarded Barbara $350/month permanent spousal support (effective Mar. 1, 2019) and $6,440 in attorney fees; circuit court affirmed; Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Harold's Argument | Barbara's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance of final hearing | Prejudice from late-service exhibits warranted continuance | Exhibits were previously disclosed; re-served as courtesy | No abuse of discretion; Harold failed to show specific prejudice |
| Valuation of marital residence and restaurant | Values lacked competent evidence as of separation; court should have ordered sale | Barbara presented appraisal and assessor data; sale would be inequitable | Valuations were within range of evidence; family court resolution not clearly erroneous |
| Exclusion/limitation of testimony about a restaurant appraisal | He should have been allowed to testify about a 2005 appraisal | He failed to produce the appraisal in discovery or at hearing | No reversible error; failure to produce document justified exclusion/deference to trial court |
| Classification of pre-Mar. 1, 2019 payments (temporary spousal support vs advanced distribution) | Court arbitrarily chose Mar. 1 and mischaracterized excess payments | Date follows hearing and proposed order timeline; court made statutory findings | Family court properly applied statutory factors and reasonably set the effective date |
| IRA treated as entirely marital property | Portion predating marriage should be separate and calculable by contribution ratio | Transfers/withdrawals made tracing impossible; Harold produced no account statements | Family court's finding not clearly erroneous given Harold's failure to prove separate portion |
| Award of $6,440 attorney fees | Banker factors weigh against award given Barbara's assets and support award | Harold had higher historical income, gave gifts, and obstructed proceedings increasing fees | Award upheld as within family court's discretion considering relative finances and noncooperation |
Key Cases Cited
- Banker v. Banker, 196 W. Va. 535, 474 S.E.2d 465 (factors for awarding attorney fees in divorce actions)
- Lucas v. Lucas, 215 W. Va. 1, 592 S.E.2d 646 (three-pronged standard of review for family court findings)
- Mulugeta v. Misailidis, 239 W. Va. 404, 801 S.E.2d 282 (appellate deference; do not reweigh evidence)
- Whiting v. Whiting, 183 W. Va. 451, 396 S.E.2d 413 (equitable distribution three-step process)
- Mayhew v. Mayhew, 197 W. Va. 290, 475 S.E.2d 382 (burden to adduce competent valuation evidence)
- Hillberry v. Hillberry, 195 W. Va. 600, 466 S.E.2d 451 (financial circumstances guide attorney fee awards)
- Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W. Va. 512, 466 S.E.2d 171 (deference to trial court evidentiary rulings)