James L. v. Carrie L.
16-0261
| W. Va. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- In April 2013 family court awarded respondent rehabilitative alimony of $3,315/month for 48 months to fund a radiologic science degree; order stated terms were not subject to modification.
- Husband appealed; in August 2013 the circuit court affirmed the family court’s findings under W. Va. Code § 48-6-301(b).
- Husband later filed for modification alleging decreased income and that wife failed to complete her education; family court denied modification in July 2014, finding the award nonmodifiable and noting an arrearage.
- Circuit court remanded in September 2014 instructing the family court to consider factors in W. Va. Code § 48-8-105 (modification of rehabilitative support).
- A remand hearing was scheduled for August 12, 2015; husband agreed to the date but did not appear after counsel withdrew (counsel’s withdrawal complied with rules and warned dates would not change).
- The family court reduced the award to $2,000/month for 48 months after considering statutory factors; husband appealed and the circuit court affirmed. This appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether family court abused discretion in denying husband's motion for continuance of Aug. 12, 2015 hearing | James: denial was abuse because counsel withdrew and he needed time to obtain new counsel | Carrie: husband agreed to date, counsel’s withdrawal warned deadlines wouldn’t change, he had notice and time | Denial not an abuse of discretion; husband had agreed to date and was properly notified |
| Whether family court failed to apply § 48-8-105 factors on remand (ability to meet rehabilitative plan) | James: family court did not reassess wife’s ability to meet rehabilitative plan as required | Carrie: family court considered wife’s age, health, skills, work skills and inability to meet plan and reassessed her prospects | Family court adequately considered § 48-8-105 factors and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether rehabilitative award was modifiable given original order language | James: contends modification warranted by changed circumstances (income drop, wife’s noncompletion) | Carrie: family court evaluated changed circumstances and adjusted amount downward, not terminated | Court upheld family court’s authority to modify under § 48-8-105 and affirmed reduction to $2,000/month |
| Whether family court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous | James: challenges findings supporting denial of continuance and assessment of wife’s prospects | Carrie: factual findings supported by testimony and exhibits | Appellate review: findings not clearly erroneous; legal application not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. Hancock, 216 W.Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (W. Va. 2004) (standard of review for family court orders reviewed by circuit court)
- Ware v. Ware, 224 W.Va. 599, 687 S.E.2d 382 (W. Va. 2009) (restating standard of review for family court factual findings and legal conclusions)
- Levy v. Scottish Union & Nat’l Ins. Co., 58 W.Va. 546, 52 S.E. 449 (W. Va. 1905) (continuance lies within trial court’s sound discretion)
- Ward v. Ward, 233 W.Va. 108, 755 S.E.2d 494 (W. Va. 2014) (circuit court should consider § 48-6-301(b) factors when awarding rehabilitative alimony)