Claypoole v. Claypoole
Annotate this CaseSeptember 1998 Term
___________
No. 24996
___________
AUDRA KAY CLAYPOOLE,
Plaintiff below, Appellee,
v.
CHARLES OTIS CLAYPOOLE,
Defendant below, Appellant.
________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Randolph County
Hon. John Henning, Judge
Case No. 96-D-53
REVERSED AND REMANDED
________________________________________________________
Submitted: October 7, 1998
Filed: December 10, 1998
Audra Kay
Claypoole Thomas
M. Regan, Esq.
Pro
Se
Elkins,
West Virginia
Appellee
Attorney for
Appellant
The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.
JUSTICE McGRAW did not participate in the decision of this case.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. "Although W.Va.
Code, 48-2-1 [1984] and W.Va. Code, 48-2-32 [1984] did not specifically mention
pension plans as marital property available for equitable distribution, these two Code
sections were broad enough to encompass pension plans." Syllabus Point 4, Cross v.
Cross, 178 W.Va. 563, 363 S.E.2d 449 (1987).
2. "When a
court is required to divide vested pension rights that have not yet matured as an incident
to the equitable distribution of marital property at divorce, the court should be guided
in the selection of a method of division by the desirability of disentangling parties from
one another as quickly and cleanly as possible. Consequently, a court should look to the
following methods of dividing pension rights in this descending order of preference unless
peculiar facts and circumstances dictate otherwise: (1) lump sum payment through a cash
settlement or off-set from other available marital assets; (2) payment over time of the
present value of the pension rights at the time of divorce to the non-working spouse; (3)
a court order requiring that the non-working spouse share in the benefits on a
proportional basis when and if they mature." Syllabus Point 5, Cross v. Cross, 178
W.Va. 563, 363 S.E.2d 449 (1987).
Per Curiam:
This case is before us on appeal from an
order of the Circuit Court of Randolph County, dated June 16, 1997, that granted a divorce
to the appellant, Charles Claypoole, and the appellee, Audra Claypoole. Mr. Claypoole
appeals the court's award of 50 percent of Mr. Claypoole's monthly pension benefits to
Audra Claypoole, when these benefits become payable after Mr. Claypoole's retirement.
I.
The appellant and the appellee were
married in 1973 and separated in February of 1996. Mrs. Claypoole filed for divorce in
Randolph County and the matter was heard before a family law master, who made a
recommended order. Both parties filed petitions for review with the circuit court, which
approved the law master's recommended order.
The order awarded alimony to the appellee
and divided the marital assets, including Mr. Claypoole's pension benefits. Mr. Claypoole
was employed at the time the divorce order was entered and had not begun to receive
retirement pension benefits. The order established the value of the pension benefits, and
provided that one half of the monthly retirement benefits, when these benefits were paid,
were to be given to Mrs. Claypoole.See footnote 1 1 On appeal Mr. Claypoole contends that the circuit court erred in granting
to Mrs. Claypoole one- half of his retirement benefits.
II.
In reviewing challenges to findings that
are adopted by a circuit court in divorce proceedings, a three-pronged standard of review
is applied. A final equitable distribution order is reviewed under an abuse of discretion
standard; the underlying factual findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard;
and questions of law and statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review.
Syllabus Point 1, Burnside v. Burnside, 194 W.Va. 263, 460 S.E.2d 264 (1995).
We have held:
Although W.Va. Code, 48-2-1 [1984]
and W.Va. Code, 48-2-32 [1984] did not specifically mention pension plans as
marital property available for equitable distribution, these two Code sections were broad
enough to encompass pension plans.
Syllabus Point 4, Cross v. Cross, 178 W.Va. 563, 363 S.E.2d 449 (1987).See footnote 2 2
The net value of marital property,
including pension benefits, is ordinarily determined as of the date of the commencement of
the divorce action. W.Va. Code, 48-2- 32(d)(1) [1996].See footnote 3 3
We have held:
When a court is required to divide vested
pension rights that have not yet matured as an incident to the equitable distribution of
marital property at divorce, the court should be guided in the selection of a method of
division by the desirability of disentangling parties from one another as quickly and
cleanly as possible. Consequently, a court should look to the following methods of
dividing pension rights in this descending order of preference unless peculiar facts and
circumstances dictate otherwise: (1) lump sum payment through a cash settlement or off-set
from other available marital assets; (2) payment over time of the present value of the
pension rights at the time of divorce to the non-working spouse; (3) a court order
requiring that the non-working spouse share in the benefits on a proportional basis when
and if they mature.
Syllabus Point 5, Cross v. Cross, 178 W.Va. 563, 363 S.E.2d 449 (1987) (emphasis
added). The circuit court properly
determined the value of Mr. Claypoole's pension benefits as of the date the divorce action
was commenced. However, the circuit court's 50- 50 division gave the appellee the benefit
of contributions made by the appellant after the date of the filing of the divorce.
We conclude that the circuit court erred
in awarding one-half of the future pension benefits to Mrs. Claypoole, when Mr. Claypoole
continued to work and contribute towards his retirement plan after the divorce complaint
was filed. The contributions of Mr. Claypoole to the pension plan, following the
commencement of the divorce, are not marital assets. The circuit court thus erred in
failing to divide future benefits on a proper proportional basis.
We therefore vacate the circuit court's
order and remand this matter for reconsideration of the division of the future benefits
issue, under the principles set forth in Cross.
Reversed and Remanded.
Footnote: 1 1 The Order provided that:
That [Mrs. Claypoole] is entitled to one
half of [Mr. Claypoole's] monthly retirement benefits when [Mr. Claypoole] commences to
withdraw the same and an appropriate order
reflecting the same that is satisfactory to the plan should be prepared.
Footnote: 2 2 These statutes have been revised since 1984; however, the revisions do not affect the instant case.
Footnote: 3 3 W.Va. Code, 48-2-32(d)(1)[1996]
provides in part:
After considering the factors set forth
in subsection (c) of this section, the court shall:
(1) Determine the net value of all marital
property of the parties as of the date of the commencement of the action or as of such
later date determined by the court to be more appropriate for attaining an equitable
result[.]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.