IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED April 22, 2024 LAURIE TINSMAN, ASHLEY N. DEEM, DEPUTY CLERK Petitioner Below, Petitioner INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA v.) No. 23-ICA-358 (Fam. Ct. Berkeley Cnty. No. FC-02-2021-D-171) BRIAN TINSMAN, Respondent Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Laurie Tinsman (“Wife”) appeals the Family Court of Berkeley County’s July 28, 2023, final order denying her spousal support from Respondent Brian Tinsman (“Husband”). The issue is whether the family court fully considered all the mandatory statutory spousal support factors in making its determination. 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 (2022). 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 and is appropriate for a memorandum decision. For the reasons set forth below, the family court’s decision is vacated, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. The parties were married in June 2002 and divorced by Final Divorce Order entered on July 20, 2021. Two children were born of the marriage.2 Prior to the marriage, Wife worked for approximately ten years but became a stay-at-home-parent once the parties were married. In 2007, Wife began receiving disability payments. The parties purchased a home in Martinsburg, West Virginia in 2007. Throughout the entirety of the marriage, Wife took care of the children, the home, and the bills while Husband was away working as a truck driver. Testimony revealed that Husband was rarely home due to his occupation. 1 Both parties are self-represented. 2 The youngest child was born in March of 2004. The record is devoid of the oldest child’s age but indicates that she is an emancipated adult. 1 In November of 2019, the parties separated, and Wife remained in the marital home with the parties’ daughters. During the separation, Husband voluntarily paid half of the mortgage payment on the home since his children continued to reside there. In March of 2021, Wife filed a divorce petition in the Family Court of Berkeley County. During an initial divorce hearing on June 8, 2021, the family court informed the parties that due to the circumstances of their case, Husband would be responsible for paying spousal support unless the parties reached an agreement. The court further informed the parties that Husband would be required to pay child support for their youngest daughter until she reached eighteen or graduated from high school. On July 19, 2021, the family court held a final hearing on the divorce petition. Testimony revealed that Husband’s income fluctuated and was dependent on the number of miles driven during employment. His income at the time of the final divorce hearing was approximately $54,000.00 and Wife’s sole …
Original document