Kanawha County 13-D-1714
Desislava Vladimirov, by counsel Christopher T. Pritt,
appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County's June 28,
2018, order affirming the Family Court of Kanawha
County's May 30, 2018, equitable distribution order in
the divorce proceeding. Respondent Nedeltcho Vladimirov, by
counsel Henry R. Glass III, submitted a summary response in
support of the circuit court's order.
Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record
on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented, and the decisional process would not be
significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of
the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented,
the Court finds no substantial question of law and no
prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision
is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate
to the May 30, 2018, "Order for Equitable
Distribution" entered by the Family Court of Kanawha
County, the parties owned both real estate and personal
property, and one or both parties had bank accounts, PayPal
accounts, medical bill refunds, workers' compensation
claim benefits, and retirement accounts. According to that
order, subsequent to the final hearing the parties entered an
agreed order regarding the marital home, granting exclusive
ownership and possession of that home to respondent. In
addressing gold coins the couple owned, the family court
stated that petitioner contended they were subject to
equitable distribution and had a value of $5, 000; however,
she "provided no basis for such value." Respondent
presented an exhibit showing that the sale of gold coins in
January and February of 2012 was for $1, 308 and $8, 697.80,
with the funds deposited into the couple's joint account.
He testified that the remaining gold coins have a value of
approximately $500 and proposed that they be divided equally.
The family court found that the best evidence regarding the
gold coins was that provided by respondent.
family court stated that "[r]espondent owns guns which
he described and valued totaling $1, 100, and which remain in
the residence occupied by [p]etitioner. Respondent valued the
guns at $2, 000 but provided no basis for such value."
Based on the assignments of error, it appears that petitioner
was the one who valued the guns at $2, 000. The family court
found that respondent provided the best evidence regarding
the value of the guns, and he was awarded possession of those
family court order provides that petitioner asserted a claim
for "Conrad" credits. However, that court found as a
matter of law that the pronouncements in Conrad are
inapplicable to this case since petitioner continued to
reside in and benefit from mortgage payments made by her from
the joint account during the relevant time period. It further
found that "during the period of time aforementioned
[p]etitioner continued to have her paychecks deposited into
the joint bank account of the parties from which the expenses
were paid, which creates a presumption of gift which she
failed to rebut."
order, the family court determined that, because it was
unlikely that respondent could qualify for a loan sufficient
to purchase a suitable residence for him and the parties'
minor child in the immediate future, he should be awarded
ownership of the former marital home, subject to him fully
assuming and indemnifying petitioner for the existing
mortgage indebtedness, refinancing the home in his name
within two years, and immediately placing the home on the
market for sale and promptly selling the home for an amount
that results in full payment of the mortgage balance in the
event he defaults on any monthly mortgage payment for a
period exceeding thirty days.
appealed that distribution order to the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County on June 27, 2018. By order entered June 28,
2018, the circuit court denied and dismissed petitioner's
appeal. Petitioner appeals from that order.
Court has found,
"[i]n 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." Syllabus, Carr v. Hancock,
216 W.Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004).
Syl. Pt. 2, In re K.H., 235 W.Va. 254, 773 S.E.2d 20
(2015). Further, as this Court has set forth,
"'[i]n general, an abuse of discretion occurs when a
material factor deserving significant weight is ignored, when
an improper factor is relied upon, or when all proper and no
improper factors are assessed but the circuit court makes a
serious mistake in weighing them.'" [State v.
Hedrick, 204 W.Va. 527, 553, 514 S.E.2d 397, 403 (1999)]
(quoting Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. 512, 520 n. 6,
466 S.E.2d 171, 179 n. 6 (1995)).
Shafer v. Kings Tire Service, Inc., 215 W.Va. 169,
177, 597 S.E.2d 302, 310 (2004).
appeal, petitioner asserts five assignments of error.
However, we will not address the merits of the assignments of
error that do not comply with Rule 10(c)(7) of ...