Christy M. v. Hunter M. (Memorandum Decision)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED November 21, 2016 Christy M., Petitioner Below, Petitioner vs) No. 15-1159 (Harrison County 08-D-276-4) RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA Hunter M., Respondent Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Christy M., by counsel Christopher T. Pritt, appeals the Circuit Court of Harrison County’s October 27, 2015, order affirming the family court’s order modifying the permanent parenting plan and child support, in addition to other financial issues.1 Pro se respondent Hunter M. filed a response in support of the circuit court’s order. On appeal, petitioner alleges that the family court erred in failing to attribute income to respondent based on his previous three years of employment, backdating child support to July 1, 2012, and attributing petitioner income totaling $42,000. This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The parties were divorced by final decree entered in January of 2009. Thereafter, in June of 2012, petitioner filed a notice of relocation indicating that she intended to move to Charleston, West Virginia. In June of 2012, respondent filed an objection to the proposed parenting plan incidental to the relocation and requested that he continue to be designated the primary custodian. Respondent further requested that petitioner be required to pay child support consistent with the revised income shares formula. Thereafter, the parties each filed additional pleadings regarding custody and child support. By order entered in August of 2012, the family court ordered the parties to participate in 1 Consistent with our long-standing practice in cases with sensitive facts, we use initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See In re K.H., 235 W.Va. 254, 773 S.E.2d 20 (2015); Melinda H. v. William R. II, 230 W.Va. 731, 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W.Va. 324, 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641, 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990). 1 mediation. Thereafter, respondent filed an amended objection to petitioner’s proposed amendment to the proposed parenting plan in addition to a counterclaim seeking, among other relief, an order granting him the previously requested financial relief. In September of 2012, the family court held a post-mediation status hearing and set the matter for a final hearing in January of 2013. Following the January of 2013 hearing, the family court entered an interim final hearing and injunctive order before setting the matter for another final hearing in May of 2013. The parties were then directed to file briefs pertaining to the financial matters raised in the pleadings. In August of 2013, the family court entered an opinion letter setting forth findings of fact based upon the evidence. The family court determined that respondent would be designated as the primary residential parent during the school year while petitioner would exercise parenting time during the summer months, among other shared dates. The family court further ordered the parties to provide updated financial information so that it could rule on child support. Thereafter, the family court held several telephone conferences with the parties to address the outstanding financial issues. In June of 2015, the circuit court entered a final order that modified the permanent parenting plan and child support and addressed other financial issues. In ruling on the issue of child support, the family court made several findings relevant to this appeal, including the following: (1) that respondent’s tax year 2011 income should not be considered as usual income or be averaged since it was a “significant outlier” because it constituted seven-to-eight times his typical income; (2) that child support should be backdated to July 1, 2012; and (3) that petitioner’s attributed income was $42,000 per year. In July of 2015, petitioner appealed the family court’s order to the circuit court. After holding a hearing, the circuit court affirmed that order by order entered in October of 2015. It is from this order that petitioner appeals. We have previously established the following standard of review: In reviewing a final order entered by a circuit court judge upon a review of, or upon a refusal to review, a final order of a family court judge, we review the findings of fact made by the family court judge under the clearly erroneous standard, and the application of law to the facts under an abuse of discretion standard. We review questions of law de novo. Syl., Carr v. Hancock, 216 W.Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004). On appeal, petitioner argues that the family court erred in failing to attribute income to respondent based on his previous three years of employment, backdating child support to July 1, 2012, and attributing petitioner income totaling $42,000. We do not agree. Upon our review and consideration of the circuit court’s order, the parties’ arguments, and the record submitted on appeal, we find no error or abuse of discretion by the circuit court. Our review of the record supports the circuit court’s decision to deny petitioner relief based on these alleged errors, which were also argued below. Indeed, the circuit court’s order includes well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to the assignments of error raised on appeal. Given 2 our conclusion that the circuit court’s order and the record before us reflect no clear error or abuse of discretion, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court’s findings and conclusions as they relate to petitioner’s assignments of error raised herein and direct the Clerk to attach a copy of the circuit court’s October 27, 2015, “Order Affirming Family Court’s ‘Modified Permanent Parenting Order’ And ‘Order Modifying Child Support And Addressing Other Financial Issues’” to this memorandum decision. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Affirmed. ISSUED: November 21, 2016 CONCURRED IN BY: Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum Justice Robin Jean Davis Justice Brent D. Benjamin Justice Margaret L. Workman Justice Allen H. Loughry II 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
