Collisi v. Collisi
| Decision Date | 13 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–0367.,12–0367. |
| Citation | 231 W.Va. 359,745 S.E.2d 250 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | James COLLISI, Petitioner v. Maridale COLLISI, Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
Syl., Carr v. Hancock, 216 W.Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004).
Linda Hausman, Esq., Samantha L. Chapman, Esq., Kaufman & McPherson, PLLC, Bridgeport, WV, for Petitioner.
Scott Curnutte, Esq., Michael A. Bush, pursuant to Rule 10, Rules for Admission to the Practice of Law, Jeffery Kaiser, pursuant to Rule 10, Rules for Admission to the Practice of Law, WVU Clinical Law Program, Morgantown, WV, for the Respondent.
The case sub judice involves the divorce of the petitioner, James Collisi (“Mr. Collisi”), from the respondent, Maridale Collisi (“Ms. Collisi”). In his appeal to this Court, Mr. Collisi challenges the award of permanent spousal support in the amount of $1,600 per month for Ms. Collisi; the finding that Mr. Collisi was a greater contributor to the breakdown of the marriage than Ms. Collisi; and the requirement that Mr. Collisi pay $44,314.14 in equitable distribution to Ms. Collisi. These findings were memorialized in the November 11, 2011, Decree of Divorce and Final Order of the Family Court of Marion County. Mr. Collisi appeals the February 15, 2012, Order Affirming the Family Court “Decree of Divorce and Final Order” of the Circuit Court of Marion County.
After thoroughly reviewing the record presented, the briefs, the relevant legal authorities, and the arguments of Mr. Collisi and Ms. Collisi, we find that the family court erred with regard to each of the issues raised by Mr. Collisi and that the circuit court consequently erred by affirming the family court's order. We reverse and remand this case so that the family court can correct its errors pursuant to the directions set forth in this opinion.
Mr. Collisi married Ms. Collisi on September 23, 1994. At the time of the marriage, Ms. Collisi had two minor children from a previous relationship; both children were adults at the time the parties began these divorce proceedings. There were no children born to the parties during the marriage. Mr. and Ms. Collisi last cohabitated on December 29, 2009.
In May of 2010, Ms. Collisi sought a Domestic Violence Protective Order against Mr. Collisi, alleging that he was physically, mentally and emotionally abusive. The order was granted on May 3, 2010, and Ms. Collisi was awarded $400 per month in spousal support. Ms. Collisi filed for divorce on October 28, 2010.
The final divorce hearing was held on September 26, 2011. Sometime prior to the hearing, the parties submitted to drug testing. While Mr. Collisi tested negative for drugs, Ms. Collisi tested positive for THC.1 The parties also provided individual financial statements to the court. Ms. Collisi's financialstatement indicated that she had $520 per month in expenses.
During the hearing, Ms. Collisi testified that she was employed at a 7–Eleven convenience store making roughly $500 or $550 a month.2 She stated that her expenses, which included food costs, gasoline, and utilities, were between $738 and $808. She testified that Mr. Collisi supported her and her children during the marriage, but that he was physically and emotionally abusive to her.
Mr. Collisi testified that he is a shift supervisor for Mission Operation and Maintenance, otherwise known as Mission Energy. On his financial statement, he indicated that his gross pay per two-week period was $2,972.80. No evidence was presented at the hearing detailing Mr. Collisi's monthly expenses. Mr. Collisi alleged that Ms. Collisi was adulterous and an illicit drug user.
Both parties testified about the marital home. They both agreed that Mr. Collisi bought the home prior to his marriage to Ms. Collisi. At the time the parties were married, Mr. Collisi had already paid $23,000 on the home. The remaining principal owed on the home when the parties married was $65,700. The remaining $65,700 in principal, plus interest, was paid with marital funds during the marriage. Upon the initiative of the parties, the home was appraised in August of 2011 for $110,000, and the parties do not dispute that $110,000 is the current value of the home. Mr. Collisi testified that there are currently two liens on the home totaling $97,000: the liens represent a mortgage and a line of credit that were both obtained by Mr. Collisi in his name only during the marriage.
The family court did not announce any findings during the hearing. It entered its Decree of Divorce and Final Order containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law on November 15, 2011. In determining that the marital estate had a $65,700 interest in the home, the family court said,
1) The former marital home was purchased by James Collisi a few months prior to the marriage of the Parties.
2) The former marital home has remained titled in the name of James Collisi throughout the marriage of the Parties.
3) Both Parties testified that upon the marriage of the Parties, the former marital home was encumbered by a note payable in the amount of $65,700.00, secured by a Deed of Trust upon that property.
4) The unequivocal evidence is that regular monthly payments upon that note payable were satisfied during the marriage with funds from a marital checking account, funded by the earnings of the Parties, particularly James Collisi.
5) Accordingly, the Family Court finds, concludes, and so rules, that the marital estate includes $65,700.00 pursuant to W.Va.Code § 48–1–233(2)(A). 3
(Footnote added). The family court further ordered that Mr. Collisi have exclusive ownership and possession of most of the remaining marital property, the value of which the family court determined was $54,583.11. It also ordered that Mr. Collisi assume sole liability for the marital debt which the family court determined amounted to $31,652.82. To equalize the distribution of marital assets, the family court ordered that Mr. Collisi pay $44,315.14 to Ms. Collisi.
The order also granted an award of spousal support to Ms. Collisi in the amount of $1,600 per month, finding that “[e]ach of the factors delineated in W.Va.Code § 48–6–3014 which apply [sic] to this case weigh [sic] strongly in favor of a substantial, permanent award of spousal support to Maridale Collisi.” (Footnote added). Of particular note, the family court found:
W.Va.Code § 48–6–301(b)(17): Each Party has a financial need commensurate with the comfortable, middle-class lifestyle they [sic] enjoyed during the marriage. NeitherParty has any unusual financial need or circumstance. James Collisi will be able to enjoy such a lifestyle even if he pays a substantial spousal support obligation. Maridale Collisi, on the other hand, has a financial need equivalent to the gap between the minimum wage employment she is treated as having even though her actual income is less, and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.
The circuit court also discussed the fault or misconduct of the Parties and how that conduct affected the marriage:
8. Although there are no longer any statutory bars to spousal support, pursuant to W.Va.Code § 48–8–1045 the Court is to consider and compare the fault or misconduct of the Parties and the extent to which such conduct contributed to the breakup of the marriage.
9. Maridale Collisi introduced evidence that James Collisi was physically, mentally, and emotionally abusive during the marriage[.]
....
10. James Collisi claims Maridale Collisi committed adultery and that she abandoned him.
....
13. Comparing the relative fault of the Parties is difficult, given that the Court finds that each engaged in behavior which would be substantially inequitable if the other Party was blameless. The Court must, therefore, reluctantly conclude that the Parties' relative fault was equal.
14. The Court further finds, concludes, and so rules, that James Collisi's conduct was a greater contributor to the breakdown of the marriage than Maridale Collisi's.
....
15. Based upon all the foregoing, the Family Court finds, concludes, and so rules, that James Collisi shall pay Maridale Collisi spousal support in the amount of $1,600 per month, effective 1 December 2011. Such spousal support shall continue until the death of either Party, or the remarriage of Maridale Collisi.
(Footnote added).
Mr. Collisi appealed the family court's order to the Circuit Court of Marion County. The circuit court affirmed the family court's order, making general findings that the family court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that its conclusions of law were not an abuse of discretion. Mr. Collisi now appeals the circuit court's order to this Court.
The order before the Court is a final order entered by a circuit court reviewing the final order of the family court.
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).
In this appeal, Mr. Collisi challenges the award of permanent spousal support in the amount of $1,600 per month for Ms. Collisi; the finding that Mr. Collisi was a greater contributor to the breakdown of the marriage than Ms. Collisi; and the requirement that Mr. Collisi pay $44,314.14 in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Bevel
-
Jared M. v. Molly A.
...and remand the case for further findings and development." Province, 196 W.Va. at 483, 473 S.E.2d at 904.Collisi v. Collisi, 231 W. Va. 359, 363-64, 745 S.E.2d 250, 254-55 (2013). Here, the circuit court clearly neglected to provide sufficient findings and conclusions in support of its ulti......