Amanda B. v. Hakeem M.

• Decision Date: 26 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-0335,20-0335
• Citation: 856 S.E.2d 657
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: AMANDA B., Respondent below, Petitioner v. HAKEEM M., Petitioner below, Respondent

856 S.E.2d 657

AMANDA B., Respondent below, Petitioner

v.HAKEEM M., Petitioner below, Respondent

No. 20-0335

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: March 2, 2021

Filed: March 26, 2021

Robert C. Stone, Jr., Esq., Robert C. Stone, Jr., PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Counsel for the Petitioner.

Cinda L. Scales, Esq., Scales Law Office, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Counsel for the Respondent.

WOOTON, Justice:

In this case, petitioner Amanda B. ("Mother") appeals from three orders¹ entered by the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, reversing the family court's determination that Mother's child support obligation was $0. The family court gave Mother credit for the social security benefits received by the children, who reside with and are in the custody of respondent Hakeem M. ("Father"), who is the disabled child support obligee. At issue is whether a nondisabled child support obligor such as Mother is entitled to an adjustment or credit for "social security benefits sent directly to the child" on behalf of a disabled obligee, as set forth in West Virginia Code § 48-13-603(a) (2015). Upon review of the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, the appendix record, and all other matters submitted before this Court, we find that the circuit court correctly applied the language of West Virginia Code § 48-13-603(a) in reversing the family court's determination that Mother, the nondisabled obligor, was entitled to credit for the social security benefits paid to the children. We affirm the circuit court's decision.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

The parties were divorced by final order entered August 17, 2017. They have fifteen-year-old twins. Mother currently resides in Berkeley County, West Virginia, while Father resides in Wake County, North Carolina. At the time the final divorce order was entered, Mother received custody of the children, and Father was ordered to pay child support.

At an August 19, 2019, hearing, the family court modified the parties’ custodial arrangement, granting primary custody of the children to Father and custodial time to Mother. The parties agreed to this modification, which was based upon the children's wishes and which prompted the need to change the child support obligations of the parties.

According to the West Virginia Child Support Guidelines ("Child Support Guidelines"),² the family court determined that Father had a monthly gross income of $5,069.00, which included social security and Veteran's Disability benefits. Father received a deduction for a pre-existing child support obligation. Mother's monthly gross income was $4,793.00 per month, and she also received a deduction for an additional child in the child support calculation. It was determined that there was a social security benefit of $776.00 which was payable for the benefit of the children due to Father's disability. Father's monthly adjusted income was determined to be $4,722.00, and Mother's was determined to be $4,315.25. The family court calculated the total child support obligation to be $1,568.00. Father's share of this obligation was $819.28, and Mother's share was $749.00.³

After calculating the parties’ respective child support obligations, the family court then offset Mother's child support obligation with the $776.00 social security benefit payable for the children's benefit based upon Father's disability. That offset reduced Mother's child support obligation to $0 per month. The family court found "that both of the parties’ children receive benefits from Social Security which total $776.00 per month, and consequently, ... the Social Security benefits received by the parties’ children will offset the Respondent's [mother's] child support obligation...."

Father appealed the family court's decision to the circuit court, arguing that the family court abused its discretion "by allowing the non-custodial parent to pay no child support by crediting a social security payment for the benefit of the children from the custodial parent's disability toward the non-custodial parent's child support obligation." Father also argued that the family court did not make any adjustment to the child support calculation pursuant to West Virginia Code § 48-13-702 (2015).⁴

By order entered December 13, 2019, the circuit court agreed with Father and granted his appeal. The circuit court found that the family court abused its discretion by not following the Child Support Guidelines; the court stated that the family court "did not make any adjustment" in the child support award as required by West Virginia Code § 48-12-702 when it found that "the provision of the Social Security benefit payable upon the Petitioner's [Father's] disability would cancel any child support obligation owed by the Respondent [Mother]." The circuit court further found that

[t]he dependency benefits are earned in part through the employee's payment of social security taxes. The purpose is to replace the income lost because of the employee's disability. It is equitable to treat dependency benefits as a substitute for child support for the period during which such benefits are paid for the employee's obligation. The benefits are not earned by the Mother, and they should not be credited to the Mother's obligation, and her child support obligation should not be offset by the Father's earnings.

The circuit court found the family court clearly erred in its determination that Mother owed no child support because of the credit the family court gave her for the social security benefit credit arising from Father's disability.

Thereafter, the circuit court entered an order dated March 17, 2020,⁵ in which it recognized that after granting the appeal and finding the family court erred in its determination that Mother owed no child support due to the social security benefit offset, no child support amount was set. The circuit court, however, found it unnecessary to remand the case to the family court on this issue. Instead, it determined that based upon the family court's previous child support calculation, the Mother owed the amount of $749.00 beginning on September 1, 2019.⁶

Mother then filed a Motion to Alter or Amend and a Motion to Reconsider the circuit court's March 17, 2020, order. After considering Mother's motions, by order entered April 13, 2020, the circuit court remanded the case back to the family court.⁷

II. Standard of Review

In this case, Mother appeals the circuit court's decision to reverse the family court's final order concerning her child support obligation. Our standard of review of the circuit court's order is well established:

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.

Syllabus, Carr v. Hancock , 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004). With this standard of review in mind, we address the issue before us.

III. Discussion

The issue before the Court is whether social security benefits paid in accordance with West Virginia Code § 48-13-603(a) can be used to offset the child support obligation of the nondisabled obligor.⁸ Mother argues that the statute provides: "To arrive at the final ... child support amount, however, the amount of the social security benefits sent directly to the child's household will be subtracted from the child support order. If the child support order amount results in a negative amount it shall be set a[t] zero." Id. She contends that "[t]he aforementioned language of West Virginia Code § 48-13-603(a) does not set forth that the social security benefits shall not be considered and not subtracted if they are based upon a disability of the obligee." Mother maintains that the family court properly calculated her child support obligation of $749.00 per month and found that the children's social security benefits were $776.00 per month. Finding that the social security benefits were greater than her monthly support obligation, the family court correctly determined that she owed $0 in child support. See id.

Conversely, Father argues that under West Virginia Code § 48-13-603(a), "if the obligor's ... social security benefits are sent directly to the children, the obligor would receive a credit[.]" Father contends that nothing in the statute permits a nondisabled obligor such as Mother to receive an adjustment or credit for the amount of social security benefits paid directly to the children as a result of the obligee's disability. Father also argues that neither party requested a deviation from the Child Support Guidelines pursuant to West Virginia Code § 48-13-702 ; therefore, the circuit court did not err in reversing the family court's application of § 48-13-603(a) and ordering Mother to pay child support in the amount of $749.00 which was the amount previously calculated by the family court, without objection, prior to the erroneous social security credit.

Under our fundamental rules of statutory construction, "[a] statutory provision which is clear and unambiguous and plainly expresses the legislative intent will not be interpreted by the courts but will be given full force and effect." Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Epperly , 135 W. Va. 877, 65 S.E.2d 488 (1951). "Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no basis for application of rules of statutory construction; but courts must apply the statute according to the legislative intent plainly expressed therein." Syl. Pt. 1, Dunlap v. State Comp. Dir. , 149 W. Va. 266, 140 S.E.2d 448 (1965). "We look first to the statute's language. If the text, given its plain meaning, answers the interpretive question, the language must prevail and further inquiry is foreclosed." Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep't of W. Va. , 195 W. Va. 573, 587, 466 S.E.2d 424, 438 (1995...