Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Brian Davis v. Starla Davis
Citation: Not availableDocket: 22-ica-153
Court: Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia; March 5, 2023; West Virginia; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Brian Davis appeals a September 12, 2022, order from the Family Court of Harrison County that modified his spousal support obligation, reducing it from $1,100 to $475 per month. The appeal, supported by Starla Davis, followed Davis's petition to modify or terminate spousal support due to a knee injury that forced him into retirement and resulted in disability benefits. The family court found a change in circumstances justifying the modification, noting Davis’s monthly income of $4,236 compared to Starla Davis’s $4,318.70, and highlighted discrepancies in Starla's listed expenses, including $416.67 for home repairs and $300 for pet care. The court also established that Davis had $20,000 in liquid assets, while Starla had none. Davis contests this modification, asserting thirteen errors, including the failure to consider his farming and mortgage expenses, and the exclusion of an attorney fee loan and tax preparation fee as legitimate expenses. The appellate court has jurisdiction under West Virginia Code 51-11-4 (2022) and reviews fact findings for clear error and legal application for abuse of discretion. The court determined there was error in the family court's decision but found no substantial question of law, leading to a reversal and remand for further proceedings. The family court's decision is challenged on three main grounds: the miscalculation of Mr. Davis's liquid assets as $20,000, the disregard for the financial needs of both parties, and the flawed rationale behind the spousal support award of $475 intended to equalize disposable income. Ms. Davis argues in favor of the ruling, asserting that the court appropriately considered relevant factors without error or abuse of discretion. However, it was found that Ms. Davis, not Mr. Davis, had $20,000 in liquid assets, which significantly influenced the spousal support determination. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia mandates a substantial change in circumstances, unforeseen at the time of the divorce decree, as a prerequisite for modifying support obligations. The court must also consider twenty specified factors, including marriage length and each party's financial needs and earning capabilities, when assessing spousal support. The family court erroneously stated that the spousal support would equalize the parties' disposable income, a criterion disallowed by precedent. Consequently, the family court's order from September 12, 2022, is reversed and remanded for corrective action regarding asset calculations and a reevaluation of spousal support needs based on established legal standards.