Home » Personal Finance Articles » Committee to Study Spousal Support Standards in West Virginia
Committee to Study Spousal Support Standards in West Virginia
The West Virginia Supreme Court has created a committee to review the awarding of alimony or spousal support payments, as the Court wishes to determine if judges need more formalized guidance.
December 17, 2011 /Personal Finance PR News/ -- The West Virginia Supreme Court has set up a committee of judges to help determine if the state needs to provide more formalized guidance for family court judges when allocating alimony or spousal support payments in a divorce.
Justice Workman said, "Through this study, we hope to ascertain if such guidelines are needed, and whether they would reduce the costs, both financial and emotional, of the divorce process."
Current law supplies judges with relatively broad instructions when deciding spousal support questions. One section states the court as the authority to order support, another notes it can be paid by installments or as a lump sum.
Four Classes of Spousal Support
The current statutes list the four types of spousal support authorized as:
- Permanent spousal support
- Temporary spousal support, or "spousal support pendente lite"
- Rehabilitative spousal support
- Spousal support in gross
Somewhat surprising, only, "rehabilitative spousal support" and "spousal support in gross" are defined by the statutes.
Rehabilitative spousal support is defined as being "payable for a specific and determinable period of time, designed to cease when the payee is, after the exercise of reasonable efforts, in a position of self-support."
Spousal support in gross is defined as "payable either in a lump sum, or in periodic payments of a definite amount over a specific period of time."
Factors A Court Should Consider
The West Virginia statutes do offer judges a list of factors to be used when determining spousal support, child support or separate maintenance for the parties.
The list consists of twenty items, and it contains some simple and straightforward questions, like how long was the couple married, how long did they live together and what is their current income.
The list also includes far more subjective factors, such as "physical, mental and emotional condition." The determination of "mental and emotional condition" clearly requires a much more wide ranging investigation by the family court judge than something like ascertaining a person's age.
Also complex are the factors concerning the standard of living of the marriage, how much and how soon a party may be able to increase their education/earning capabilities, thereby diminishing the need for support.
The judge should also consider the costs of that education/training, other elements of the family relationship, and the financial need of the party.
Everything, Including The Kitchen Sink
The final factor is a catchall: "Such other factors as the court deems necessary or appropriate to consider in order to arrive at a fair and equitable grant of spousal support, child support or separate maintenance."
This means a judge has to consider practically everything that affects the parties and their relationship. This is necessarily broad, but because the judge has to consider "such other factors" and how they come together, it becomes a very factual, case-specific inquiry.
The combining of spousal support and child support factors also could make it confusing for judges and parties. A judge may intermix factors in a way not intended by the legislature, but it may be difficult for party to articulate objections to a spousal support order.
This leads to a lack of predictability, as one judge may place more weight on one factor than another judge, potentially leading to different results to parties who are similarly situated. It also means parties have little guidance when attempting to anticipate if they will be able to receive, or need to pay, spousal support when they begin their divorce.
The legislature does instruct judges not to use spousal support as a means of equalizing the income between spouses, but beyond that, the determination is left to the broad discretion of the trial court.
This is done with the expectation that the judge is in the best position to hear the facts of the case, see the witnesses and assess their credibility. And a reviewing court is not to reverse a judge merely because they would have decided the matter differently.
In contrast to the vague instructions and broad discretion with regard to spousal support, child support payments are almost entirely dictated by the legislature, and are specified by a table in the statutes.
It is unclear, what, if any change the committee will purpose, but they may request some measurements, as it is unclear how often courts in West Virginia award spousal support and how much is awarded.
Justice Workman described the current system as "inconsistent and unpredictable" and the goal of the committee is to determine if guidelines could improve the consistency and predictability of spousal awards. Any recommendations would have to be approved by the Supreme Court and the Legislature.
Article provided by Pritt & Pritt, PLLC
Visit us at www.prittlaw.com
---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com |
|
|
Press Release Contact Information:
FL Web Advantage
|
|
|
|
|
| PERSONAL FINANCE ARCHIVE SEARCH |
|
|
| |
| SUBMIT PERSONAL FINANCE NEWS |
|
|
| |
|
|
Advertise With Us |
About Us |
Contact Us