Paugh v. Linger, 718 S.E.2d 793

Paugh and Linger were married in 1997 with two children, Kenton and Kami, and divorced in 2009.
An Agreed Permanent Parenting Plan designated Paugh as primary residential parent with 50/50 shared major life decisions.
Dispute arose over schooling; Paugh unilaterally enrolled children at St. Patrick Catholic School in August 2010 without Linger’s consent or mediation.
The family court found this to be a violation of the parenting plan’s 50/50 decision-making provision and the dispute-resolution mechanism.
The court ordered re-enrollment at Peterson, civil penalty of $100, and attorney’s fees to Linger, with the fee amount to be determined.
The circuit court affirmed the parenting-plan violation but reversed the attorney’s-fee award and remanded for proper Banker-factor findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Paugh violate the parenting plan?	Paugh contends 50/50 decision making does not require unanimity.	Linger argues Paugh acted without consent or mediation, violating the plan.	Yes; court-affirms violation.
Is the attorney’s fees award properly upheld without explicit Banker-factor findings?	Banker factors justify the fee given the dispute and outcomes.	Fee award is authorized by the plan/Code but lacks explicit Banker-factor analysis.	No; reversed and remanded for findings.

Banker v. Banker, 196 W.Va. 535 (1996) ( Banker factors govern attorney’s fees in divorce-related proceedings)
Grose v. Grose, 222 W.Va. 722 (2008) (Banker factors apply to proceedings stemming from divorce)
Wachter v. Wachter, 216 W.Va. 489 (2004) (utilizing Banker factors in post-divorce fee decisions)
Dale Patrick D. v. Victoria Diane D., 203 W.Va. 438 (1998) ( Banker framework cited in custody/visitation fee context)
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Pitrolo, 176 W.Va. 190 (1986) (reversing and remanding for explicit fee calculations)
Carr v. Hancock, 216 W.Va. 474 (2004) (standard of review for family-court orders on appeal)