Kevin D. v. Beth Ann R.
16-0530
W. Va.Mar 10, 2017Background
- Kevin D. (petitioner) and Beth Ann R. (respondent) married in 1998, separated in 2010; respondent filed for divorce (irreconcilable differences) and the divorce was ultimately granted after bifurcation and hearings.
- The family court found respondent living in the former marital residence with two minor children; petitioner had deeded his interest in that home to respondent in 2011.
- Parties held three properties secured by a consolidated Clay County Bank loan (two in Clay County, one in Kanawha County); the consolidated loan included roughly $59,000 of other obligations beyond the three mortgages.
- The family court’s March 14, 2016 final order allocated 60.3% of the Clay County Bank loan balance to respondent and 39.7% to petitioner, ordered respondent to quitclaim Clay County properties to petitioner, and required petitioner to reimburse respondent for certain IRA/education accounts he cashed out.
- Petitioner appealed to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County (which affirmed without a hearing), and then appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of 2013 valuations in 2016 final order / failure to account for post-separation appreciation | Family court relied on outdated (2013) financial values and failed to account for passive appreciation between the 2014 hearing and 2016 order. | Family court contemplated subsequent accounting via QDRO and petitioner did not object to the 401(k) apportionment at hearing. | Affirmed: court may rely on earlier figures where order contemplates later contemporaneous accounting (e.g., via QDRO) and petitioner did not object to valuation at hearing. |
| Designation of mutual fund and bank stock as children’s college funds | The Growth Fund of America and Coastal Bank stock are marital property, not college funds; petitioner never agreed to pay college expenses. | Prior filings, emails, and prior admissions/supporting documents identified certain accounts as for the children; petitioner had previously acknowledged some education accounts and cashed Coverdale IRAs. | Affirmed: factual findings that assets were college funds were not clearly erroneous given the record. |
| Allocation of Clay County Bank debt among properties | Allocation was inequitable; petitioner should pay 36.5% instead of 39.7014% based on relative property values. | The consolidated loan included additional liabilities; petitioner failed to present current/apposite valuations at trial. | Affirmed: family court’s allocation supported by evidence; petitioner did not present adequate contrary valuation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004) (standard of review for family-court findings on appeal).
- Zickefoose v. Zickefoose, 228 W. Va. 708, 724 S.E.2d 312 (2012) (appellate review standards reiterated for family-court orders reviewed by circuit court).
- P.A. v. T.A., 238 W. Va. 216, 793 S.E.2d 866 (2016) (post-separation appreciation of marital assets is marital property).
- Dababnah v. Dababnah, 207 W. Va. 585, 534 S.E.2d 781 (2000) (post-separation increase in investment value classified as marital property).
- Chenault v. Chenault, 224 W. Va. 141, 680 S.E.2d 386 (2009) (QDROs governed by federal law; plan administrators follow QDRO directions).