John William Ernest Ward v. Erica Jill Ward
755 S.E.2d 494
W. Va.2014Background
- Married Oct 14, 2000; separated Dec 27, 2009; two children aged 8 and 5 at final order
- Husband holds 25% interests in Advantage Timberland, East River Timber, and Lonesome Pine Real Estate; Wife stayed home during marriage
- Parties contested value of Husband’s interest in Advantage; 2011 Husband income from Advantage was $156,092
- Family court valued Advantage using normalization of officer compensation; two different expert valuations were presented
- Circuit court affirmed some rulings but reversed/ remanded valuation and child-support calculations; ultimate decision: reverse in part and remand in part; affirm in part
- Final disposition: affirm in part, reversed and remanded in part for valuation as of separation and for recalculation of child support incorporating spousal support as Wife’s gross income
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation of Advantage Timberland as of separation | Ward argues valuation used a hypothetical post-separation structure | Ward's expert contends normalization appropriate; other expert argues no excess compensation | Remanded; valuation must reflect date of separation, not a hypothetical entity |
| Personal goodwill attribution to Husband | Wife contends one-third personal goodwill was marital property | Husband relies on expert testimony; personal goodwill should be non-marital | Affirmed that personal goodwill is non-marital; enterprise goodwill subject to distribution |
| Child support calculation including spousal support | Circuit court did not include $3,250 spousal support in Wife's gross income | Family court calculation consistent; spousal support not income for child support | Reversed and remanded to include spousal support in Wife's gross income for calculation |
| Rehabilitative alimony amount/duration | Circuit court erred in increasing rehabilitative support | Circuit court properly weighed §48-6-301 factors | Affirmed rehabilitative spousal support award as reasonable and within discretion |
| Attorneys' fees awards | Wife seeks attorney’s fees; argues imbalance of results | Court should consider factors and each party bears own fees | Affirmed denial of Wife’s requested fees; each party bears own fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Tankersley v. Tankersley, 182 W. Va. 627, 390 S.E.2d 826 (1990) (net value of marital property; fair market value vs. net value; capitalization of earnings)
- May v. May, 214 W. Va. 394, 589 S.E.2d 536 (2003) (distinguishes enterprise goodwill vs. personal goodwill)
- Porter v. Porter, 212 W. Va. 682, 575 S.E.2d 292 (2002) (analyzes factors for rehabilitative spousal support beyond marriage length)
- Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004) (standard of review for family court decisions; de novo questions of law)
- Paugh v. Linger, 228 W. Va. 194, 718 S.E.2d 793 (2011) (general framework for evaluating valuation and distribution)