Summary
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order upholding the family court’s denial of Gregory E.’s motion for reconsideration in a divorce proceeding. The court held that Gregory identified no authority requiring a hearing on the motion and failed to show that his appraisal of the marital home or worsened health issues constituted newly discovered evidence unavailable when the matter was previously submitted. The court therefore found no clear error or abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the lower courts were required to hold a hearing on Gregory's motion for reconsideration.
- Whether Gregory established grounds for reconsideration based on allegedly newly discovered evidence concerning the value of the marital home and his medical condition.
- Whether the lower courts erred in denying the motion for reconsideration.
Holdings
- The lower courts did not err by denying Gregory's motion for reconsideration without holding a hearing because Gregory cited no law requiring a hearing on such a motion.
- A later-obtained appraisal did not, by itself, qualify as newly discovered evidence warranting reconsideration where the parties had stipulated to the home's value and Gregory did not show that the appraisal could not have been available when the matter was submitted for decision.
- Gregory failed to establish newly discovered evidence concerning his medical condition because his motion supplied no information showing that the asserted health issues differed from or were unavailable during the original proceedings.
Key quotations
“At the outset, we note that, although petitioner asserts that the lower courts erred in failing to hold a hearing on his motion for reconsideration, he has cited no law obligating a court to hold a hearing on such motion.” (2)
“The fact that petitioner later obtained an appraisal is not, in and of itself, sufficient to entitle him to reconsideration of the home’s value.” (3)
Factual background
The family court's divorce order found that Gregory was receiving temporary total disability payments of $300 per week and ordered him to pay Roxanna $250 per month for sixty-eight months as her marital share of the equity in the marital home, whose value the parties had stipulated to be $80,000. Roxanna also received specified household items, portions of a tax refund and Gregory's 401(k), and one-half of her attorney fees. After the circuit court affirmed the divorce order, Gregory sought reconsideration based on a later appraisal of the home and asserted continuing or worsening medical problems affecting his earning ability.
Procedural history
The family court entered a divorce order addressing the marital home, marital property, income-tax-refund and 401(k) distributions, and attorney fees. The circuit court affirmed that order. Gregory then filed a motion for reconsideration in the family court based on an appraisal of the marital home and asserted worsening health issues; the family court denied the motion, and the circuit court affirmed that denial. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court.