Court: West Virginia Supreme Court; December 5, 1991; West Virginia; State Supreme Court
Reta Mae Blackhurst appeals a December 6, 1990, order from the Circuit Court of Harrison County that modified her alimony award, reducing monthly payments from $1,927.32 to $50.00 due to the husband's financial difficulties. The court affirmed its jurisdiction to make this modification. The couple divorced in 1980, with the husband agreeing to pay $1,250 per month in alimony, which later increased to $1,927.32 following cost-of-living adjustments. After the husband unilaterally reduced payments in December 1987 and ceased payments in April 1988, the wife filed for contempt, resulting in a court finding him $37,000 in arrears. The husband then petitioned to modify the divorce decree based on his decreased earning capacity. A family law master determined his financial situation warranted a reduction in alimony, leading to the court’s final order being applied retroactively from January 1, 1990.
The wife contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the alimony agreement, arguing that the property settlement did not allow for modification and specified that alimony could only terminate upon death or her remarriage. The husband and the circuit court relied on precedent from In re Estate of Hereford, which established that if a property settlement agreement is not merged into a divorce decree, the court loses jurisdiction to modify the terms. Hereford clarified that approval of an agreement by the court implies ongoing jurisdiction unless explicitly stated otherwise in the agreement. The ruling emphasized that for any modifications to be unenforceable by the court, the parties must clearly articulate their intentions, a requirement underscored by West Virginia law.
The final divorce decree ratified and confirmed the property settlement agreement without any language restricting the court's jurisdiction to modify the alimony award. The decree specified monthly alimony payments of $1,250 starting January 1, 1981, and continuing until further court order, indicating ongoing jurisdiction. The circuit court, therefore, had the authority to modify the alimony. Although the wife argued that the modification amount was incorrect, the husband claimed financial difficulties, including a bankruptcy filed in June 1989, asserting that his real estate holdings were largely encumbered and under bankruptcy control. The wife's potential modification request remains valid under Hereford due to the court's continuing jurisdiction. The husband's prior income was between $115,000 and $200,000, but he now receives $791 monthly from Social Security disability after becoming disabled in 1983. The wife sold the family home for $130,000 and has $30,000 in inherited bonds. West Virginia Code § 48-2-16(a) states that alimony awards are subject to modification unless explicitly stated otherwise in the separation agreement or divorce order. The property settlement agreement provided that alimony would not terminate unless one party died or the wife remarried, but it did not prevent the court from modifying the award after seven years. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Harrison County was affirmed.
