Background
Carmen Ann Riley filed a petition for a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) against her husband, Terry Allen Riley, in the Magistrate Court of Wood County on October 8, 2024. The petition alleged a pattern of escalating abuse beginning shortly after their May 2024 marriage, including respondent forcing petitioner to resign from her retail job, verbal abuse, controlling her phone and movements, physical violence including punching and strangulation, and threats to kill her. The petition alleged that on October 7, 2024, respondent kicked petitioner in the chest, grabbed her throat, and strangled her, resulting in a two-day hospitalization and respondent’s arrest and incarceration.
In addition to standard no-contact provisions, petitioner requested temporary possession of the marital residence, reimbursement for expenses related to the domestic violence, exclusive possession of the parties’ dog, temporary use of respondent’s vehicle (the household’s only working vehicle), temporary spousal support, funds to hire a divorce attorney, and return of personal property respondent had removed from the marital home. At the October 30, 2024 family court hearing, respondent contested the allegations but consented to entry of a DVPO. The family court granted certain relief including temporary possession of the marital home, $150 in expenses, and possession of respondent’s dog with $150 monthly for its care. However, the family court refused to consider petitioner’s requests for the vehicle, spousal support, attorney fees, and return of personal property, stating that such matters were better suited for a divorce proceeding and that it could not “restore [her] economically through this proceeding.”
Petitioner appealed to the Circuit Court of Wood County, arguing that West Virginia Code § 48-27-503 authorized the requested relief. The circuit court refused to entertain the argument, stating it could not “remedy all those matters in a domestic violence case” and that property and support issues “will have to be dealt with in another matter.” The circuit court affirmed the DVPO in full and dismissed the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the family court erred in refusing to consider petitioner’s requests for permissive relief under West Virginia Code § 48-27-503. Justice Trump, writing for the Court, explained that the statute’s provisions are “clear and unambiguous” and expressly authorize family courts to grant the types of relief petitioner requested. The Court emphasized that § 48-27-503 permits protective orders to include temporary possession of motor vehicles “owned by either or both of the parties” (subsection 10), temporary support and maintenance for the petitioner (subsection 6), reimbursement for expenses incurred as a result of domestic violence (subsection 11), and “any other relief the court deems necessary to protect the physical safety of petitioner” (subsection 14).
The Court rejected respondent’s argument that the family court had adequately considered the requests by granting other relief. The Court found that the family court explicitly refused to consider certain requests, instead directing petitioner to file for divorce. This, the Court held, was legal error. The statute authorizes family courts to grant immediate economic relief within the DVPO framework to help victims gain independence from their abusers, and courts must exercise discretion rather than defer such matters to hypothetical future proceedings.
The Court established a new syllabus point: “The terms of a domestic violence protective order may include the relief set forth in West Virginia Code § 48-27-503 (2001). When requested, the family court shall hear evidence as to the appropriateness of such relief; exercise its discretion as to whether, and to what extent, relief should be granted; and make findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining its decision to grant or deny the relief requested.” The Court remanded with directions to conduct a hearing on petitioner’s requests and enter an order consistent with the opinion.
Key Takeaways
- Family courts must consider requests for permissive relief under W. Va. Code § 48-27-503 in DVPO proceedings and cannot simply defer such matters to future divorce actions.
- The statute authorizes broad economic relief including temporary vehicle possession, spousal support, expense reimbursement, and other relief necessary to protect petitioner’s safety and enable independence from the abuser.
- When permissive relief is requested, family courts must hear evidence, exercise discretion, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining their decision to grant or deny relief.
- The scope of available relief under § 48-27-503 is broad and designed to address both immediate safety concerns and economic hardships that prevent victims from escaping abusive situations.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that West Virginia’s domestic violence protective order statute provides a comprehensive remedial framework, not merely a mechanism for no-contact orders. By requiring family courts to consider economic relief such as vehicle possession, temporary support, and attorney fees, the Court recognized that financial dependence is often a barrier preventing victims from leaving abusive relationships. The ruling ensures that victims can seek immediate economic stability through the expedited DVPO process rather than being forced to initiate separate divorce proceedings while remaining financially vulnerable.
The decision also establishes important procedural requirements: family courts must actually exercise discretion when permissive relief is requested, support their decisions with findings and conclusions, and cannot categorically refuse to consider statutorily authorized relief. This creates a meaningful appellate record and ensures that victims receive the full protection the Legislature intended.