Joseph M. v. Hollie L.

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
FILED
February 3, 2026
JOSEPH M.,
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
Respondent Below, Petitioner INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

v.) No. 25-ICA-302 (Fam. Ct. Nicholas Cnty. Case No. FC-34-2024-D-37)

HOLLIE L.,
Petitioner Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Joseph M.1 (“Husband”) appeals the Family Court of Nicholas County’s
June 30, 2025, order directing him to continue paying Respondent Hollie L. (“Wife”) for a
vehicle that she was awarded in equitable distribution after the vehicle was crashed and
paid off by her insurance company.2 Wife did not participate in the appeal.3

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 that there is error in the family court’s decision but no
substantial question of law. This case satisfies the “limited circumstances” requirement of
Rule 21(d) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure for reversal in a memorandum decision.
For the reasons set forth below, the family court’s decision is reversed, and this case is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Husband and Wife were married on October 9, 2010. Two children were born of the
marriage. The parties were divorced by order entered May 3, 2024. The family court
ordered Husband to pay $733 per month in child support. Both parties waived any claim
for spousal support and reached a settlement agreement on equitable distribution. Pursuant
to their agreement, the family court awarded Wife exclusive use, possession, and ownership

1
To protect the confidentiality of the juveniles 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
Husband 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
of the parties’ Ford Edge vehicle. Husband agreed to assume the debt owed on the Ford
Edge and to pay the monthly car payment of $630.

Sometime thereafter, Wife was involved in a car accident resulting in damage to the
Ford Edge that rendered it a total loss. Wife’s auto insurance paid all but $400 of the
remaining debt owed on the vehicle, which Husband paid. Thereafter, Wife filed a petition
for contempt against Husband for failing to make the remaining monthly payments on the
Ford Edge allotted to her under the final divorce decree. The family court conducted a
hearing on Wife’s petition on June 17, 2025. At the hearing, Wife argued that Husband
should be required to make the monthly payments for her benefit through January 2030,
which was the expected payoff month, so she could use the funds to acquire a replacement
vehicle. Husband argued that the divorce order anticipated he would pay off the Ford Edge,
and because insurance paid the vehicle off, he should not be required to make any
additional payments.

By order entered June 30, 2025, the family court held that, although not specifically
designated as such in the divorce order, Husband’s payments toward the Ford Edge were
in the nature of alimony. In support of its decision, the family court cited Beverly v. Beverly,
No. 23-ICA-575, 2024 WL 3594328 (W. Va. Ct. App. July 30, 2024) (memorandum
decision). The court further ruled that Wife would pay $274.31 in monthly child support to
Husband. The court then offset the $274.31 from the $630 vehicle payment, and ordered
Husband to pay Wife $355.69 per month through and including January 2030. Husband
now appeals the June 30, 2025, order.

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, Husband raises one assignment of error. He asserts that the family court
erred when it ordered him to pay for Wife’s vehicle after it was paid off after Wife’s car
accident. In support of his argument, Husband asserts that the parties waived alimony in
the May 3, 2024, order. We agree.

The family court’s finding that the Beverly case is applicable to this matter was
erroneous. In Beverly, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the court granted the wife spousal

2
support in gross in an amount equal to the debt owed on the vehicle she received in
equitable distribution, and the court ordered the husband agreed to pay off the debt on the
vehicle by making monthly loan payments. Id. The vehicle was later damaged in a flood
and the remaining debt owed was paid off with insurance proceeds. Id. The family court
ruled that the husband was still responsible for the debt even though the debt was paid with
insurance proceeds because he had agreed to make the payments as a form of spousal
support. Id. Husband appealed and we affirmed the family court. Id.

Beverly is wholly distinguishable from the present case. Here, the parties waived
spousal support, and the Ford Edge and its associated debt was divided between Husband
and Wife as part of the equitable distribution of the marital estate. The court explicitly
stated in the May 3, 2024, divorce order that the parties waived any claim for spousal
support and did not associate Husband’s assumption of the vehicle debt with spousal
support. Therefore, the family court abused its discretion by finding that the car payments
were “periodic payments in the nature of alimony” and by ordering Husband to resume
payments to Wife.

Accordingly, we reverse the June 30, 2025, order and remand the matter to the
Family Court of Nicholas County for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Reversed and Remanded.

ISSUED: February 3, 2026

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

3