Tina W. v. Spencer W.

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
FILED
March 24, 2025
TINA W.,
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
Respondent Below, Petitioner INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

v.) No. 24-ICA-325 (Fam. Ct. Taylor Cnty. Case No. FC-46-2014-D-40)

SPENCER W.,
Petitioner Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Tina W.1 appeals two orders entered on July 17, 2024, by the Taylor
County Family Court. The first order granted Respondent Spencer W.’s motion for
reconsideration regarding his contempt sanction. The second order found that Tina W.’s
motion to enforce an earlier order was moot. Spencer W. did not participate in this appeal.2

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2024). After considering the party’s arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error.3
For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the family court’s order is appropriate
under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Our Court has previously issued memorandum decisions in this divorce matter for
Case Numbers 23-ICA-396, 23-ICA-490, 23-ICA-501, and 24-ICA-43. Thus, because
those decisions contain detailed factual recitations, we will only briefly discuss the
background facts of the case in this decision.

The parties were divorced by an agreed divorce order entered on January 13, 2015.
In that order, Spencer W. was ordered to pay Tina W. $550,000 with 5% interest accruing
per year for her share of equitable distribution. Spencer W. failed to comply with the

1
To protect the confidentiality of the juvenile involved in this case, we refer to the
parties’ last name by the first initial. See, e.g., W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e); State v. Edward
Charles L., 183 W. Va. 641, 645 n.1, 398 S.E.2d 123, 127 n.1 (1990).
2
Tina W. is self-represented.
3
We recognize our limited and circumspect review of a family court order in an
uncontested appeal, like this one, when the respondent fails to participate on appeal to
support the order.
1
parties’ agreed divorce order. Thereafter, Tina W. filed her first of multiple petitions for
contempt on March 26, 2015. After Spencer W.’s longstanding contempt, he allegedly
owed more than $700,000, including interest, to Tina W. for her share of equitable
distribution.

Spencer W. has consistently refused to comply with any of the family court’s orders
throughout the parties’ lengthy litigation, which has led to Tina W. filing numerous
pleadings concerning the same. Spencer W. has been incarcerated multiple times for his
noncompliance and blatant contempt of the family court’s orders.

Events leading to this appeal began with a January 25, 2024, order directing Spencer
W. to report to the Tygart Valley Regional Jail every weekend from Friday at 8:00 p.m.
until Sunday at 8:00 p.m., after he failed to comply with the court’s original sanction of
home confinement. In 24-ICA-43, Tina W. appealed the January 25, 2024, order alleging
that the family court erred by modifying Spencer W.’s contempt sanction from home
confinement to weekend incarceration based solely on his word that he had a new job
working out of town, which prevented him from complying with the court’s home-
confinement sanction.4 Tina W. now alleges on appeal that Spencer W. filed several
motions for reconsideration of the January 25, 2024, order while it was on appeal to this
Court. The record reflects that, by order entered on July 17, 2024, the family court ruled
on at least one of Spencer W.’s motions for reconsideration and found that it was “not in
either party’s best interest that [Spencer W.] lose his employment.” The family court also
held that Spencer W. was permitted to work on weekends if it was required by his employer,
and he was directed to provide proof to both the family court and to Tina W. of his work
requirement. It is from the July 17, 2024, order that Tina W. now appeals.

Tina W. also appeals another order entered on July 17, 2024. Events leading to that
order began when Tina W. filed a motion to enforce a final order entered on March 7, 2022,
which found Spencer W. to be in continuous willful and contumacious contempt of multiple
facets of Tina W.’s equitable distribution award. In its July 17, 2024, order, the family court
held that her motion was “moot, unnecessary, and redundant as the Court is already
enforcing the order of March 7, 2022.”

When reviewing the order of a family court, we apply the following standard of
review:

When a final order of a family court is appealed to the Intermediate Court of
Appeals of West Virginia, the Intermediate Court of Appeals shall review
the findings of fact made by the family court for clear error, and the family

4
In 24-ICA-43, we affirmed the family court’s decision.

2
court’s application of law to the facts for an abuse of discretion. The
Intermediate Court of Appeals shall review questions of law de novo.

Syl. Pt. 2, Christopher P. v. Amanda C., 250 W. Va. 53, 902 S.E.2d 185 (2024); accord W.
Va. Code § 51-2A-14(c) (2005) (specifying standards for appellate court review of family
court orders).

In her first assignment of error, Tina W. asserts that the family court erroneously
entertained and ruled on Spencer W.’s motion for reconsideration of its January 25, 2024,
order modifying his contempt sanction while the order was on appeal to this Court. This
argument lacks merit, as the issue is now moot. In 24-ICA-43, we affirmed the family
court’s decision to modify Spencer W.’s contempt sanction, ruling that, as the fact finder,
the family court had the authority to make a credibility determination regarding Spencer
W.’s employment situation. Additionally, Tina W. has failed to show how the family
court’s ruling on Spencer W.’s motion while the order was on appeal to this Court adversely
affected her case. See William M. v. W. Va. Bureau of Child Support Enf’t, No. 20-0620,
2021 WL 3833867, at *3 (W. Va. Aug. 27, 2021) (memorandum decision) (finding alleged
error by family court harmless where petitioners failed to show that they suffered prejudice
or had their substantial rights adversely affected by alleged error). Therefore, we affirm the
family court on this assignment of error.

In her second assignment of error, Tina W. contends that the family court erred by
ruling that Tina W.’s motion to enforce the March 7, 2022, order was moot. We disagree.
Based on the appendix record submitted by Tina W., the family court is, in fact, in the
process of enforcing the order. Therefore, the family court properly held that Tina W.’s
motion was moot, and we affirm on this assignment of error.

Accordingly, we affirm the Taylor County Family Court’s two July 17, 2024,
orders.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: March 24, 2025

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge S. Ryan White

3