Charlene Fleshman v. James Fleshman

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
FILED
December 4, 2025
CHARLENE FLESHMAN,
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
Petitioner Below, Petitioner INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

v.) No. 25-ICA-229 (Fam. Ct. Greenbrier Cnty. Case No. FC-13-2015-D-333)

JAMES FLESHMAN,
Respondent Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Charlene Fleshman (“Wife”) appeals the Family Court of Greenbrier
County’s May 15, 2025, order denying her motion for reconsideration regarding the
division of marital bank accounts stemming from the parties’ 2018 divorce. Respondent
James Fleshman (“Husband”) responded in support of the family court’s decision.1 Wife
did not file a reply.

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

The parties were married on June 10, 1989, and divorced by order entered on
September 9, 2017. Both parties appealed the divorce order to circuit court and it was
remanded to the family court by order entered on December 29, 2017. On remand, the
family court issued a corrected divorce order on May 7, 2018, which stated that “any money
remaining [in] the marital checking account and savings accounts at the time of separation
will be divided equally between the parties.” The corrected divorce order also awarded
Wife $2,700.00 in monthly spousal support. Both parties appealed the May 7, 2018, order
to circuit court.

On October 10, 2018, the circuit court again remanded the matter to the family court,
finding that the family court failed to divide the marital property equally and that it made
no findings that would support unequal division of marital property. The circuit court
directed the family court to divide the marital property equally or to set forth sufficient
findings that warrant unequal division. The circuit court also held that the family court was

1
Wife is represented by Paul S. Detch, Esq. Husband is represented by Alyson A.
Dotson, Esq.
1
not bound by the division of assets set forth in the May 7, 2018, corrected divorce order.
Additionally, the circuit court’s order concluded by stating, “the provisions of the
[c]orrected [d]ivorce [o]rder concerning equitable distribution and spousal support are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.”2

On February 4, 2020, Wife filed a petition for contempt to enforce the spousal
support award that accumulated while the second appeal to the circuit court was pending.
On December 29, 2020, the family court entered its order on remand, wherein it recited the
May 7, 2018, corrected divorce order, including the provision about the bank accounts
being divided equally, and reduced Husband’s spousal obligation from $2,700 to $1,000
per month. The family court also included in this order a list of items to be divided by the
parties, but the parties’ bank accounts were not included in the list. Wife appealed the
December 29, 2020, order to the circuit court, but did not appeal the issue of the parties’
bank accounts. The circuit court reversed and again remanded the family court’s December
29, 2020, order with directions for further proceedings regarding equitable distribution and
spousal support.

On October 14, 2021, the family court entered a corrected amended order, which
again recited the May 7, 2018, order and included the provision about bank accounts being
divided equally. The court added “bank shares” to the list of items to be divided, but still
did not include bank accounts in the list. Wife appealed the family court’s October 14,
2021, order to the circuit court but did not include the issue of the parties’ bank accounts
in her appeal. The circuit court reversed and remanded the family court’s October 14, 2021,
corrected amended order.

On March 23, 2022, the family court entered a second corrected amended order on
remand, wherein it again included the same bank account language but did not include
bank accounts in the list of items to be divided between the parties. The March 23, 2022,
order also directed Husband to pay Wife $1,000 per month in permanent spousal support
dating back to December 1, 2017. Wife appealed the March 23, 2022, order to the circuit
court, arguing that Husband should have been ordered to pay her $2,700 per month during
the pendency of the appeal rather than $1,000 per month. The circuit court refused her
appeal. Wife then appealed the circuit court’s order refusing her appeal to this Court. See
Fleshman v. Fleshman, No. 22-ICA-20, 2022 WL 17168091 (W. Va. Ct. App. Nov. 15,
2022) (memorandum decision). On appeal to this Court, Wife argued that the lower courts
erred by not requiring Husband to pay her $2,700 per month pursuant to the May 7, 2018,
order, even though the award was later reversed. This Court affirmed the circuit court’s
order refusing Wife’s appeal because Wife had filed her petition for contempt after spousal
support was modified to $1,000. This Court concluded, “because [Wife’s] contempt action

2
Husband argues on appeal that this directive reversed the family court’s entire
order. Wife, in contrast, contends that the directive only reversed the issues that were
appealed.
2
was not commenced [. . .] during the timeframe that the May 7, 2018, order was in effect,
there is no avenue to enforce it.”

Sometime thereafter, Husband filed a motion to enforce the sale and division of
certain personal property. The family court held a hearing on Husband’s motion on May
25, 2023. The parties reached an agreement as to how they would divide their personal
property would be divided. On June 5, 2023, the family court entered its final order that
incorporated their agreement and stated, “[a]ny order not modified by this order shall
remain in effect.” The order was silent about bank accounts.

In August 2024, Wife filed a petition for contempt, seeking enforcement of the May
7, 2018, order regarding division of the parties’ bank accounts which were valued at
approximately $27,000 at the time of separation. The family court conducted a hearing on
Wife’s contempt petition on February 4, 2025, wherein the court dismissed her petition.
Wife then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the family court heard on May 1, 2025.
At that hearing, Wife again sought enforcement of the May 7, 2018, order. Husband argued
that the May 7, 2018, order had been vacated on appeal to circuit court and that he could
not be held in contempt for an order that had been set aside. Wife argued that because the
bank account issue was not specifically appealed to the circuit court, and because the June
5, 2023, order stated, “any order not modified by this order shall remain in effect” that she
was still entitled to half of the bank account balances referenced in the May 7, 2018, order.
By order entered on May 15, 2025, the family court held that the order entered on March
23, 2022, was the operative order in the case, not the May 7, 2018, order, and that the court
was unable to enforce the May 7, 2018, order because the circuit court had reversed and
remanded it on October 10, 2018. The court further noted that Wife did not complain about
the bank accounts until August 2024, two years after the entry of the final order and six
years after the parties’ separation. It is from the May 15, 2025, order that Wife now appeals.

For these matters, 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
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).

On appeal, Wife asserts that the family court erred in failing to award her one-half
of the money from the parties’ bank accounts referenced in the May 7, 2018, order. We
disagree. The circuit court’s October 10, 2018, order specifically stated that “the provisions

3
of the [c]orrected [d]ivorce [o]rder [entered on May 7, 2018] concerning equitable
distribution and spousal support [was] hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.” Further, in
Wife’s prior appeal to this Court we noted that the May 7, 2018, order was not enforceable
because it had been set aside below. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the family court’s
factual findings are clearly erroneous or that its ultimate decision is an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm the family court’s May 15, 2025, order.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: December 4, 2025

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

4