The Court of Appeals published two opinions:
In Argoe v. Three Rivers Behavioral Health, is an appeal of a medical malpractice action. The Appellant asserted that the circuit court erred in granting all respondents partial summary judgment. The Court held that the circuit court properly granted Respondents’ motion for partial summary judgment based upon the law of the case doctrine because the specific medical negligence claim Appellant asserted to the circuit court is based upon the medical professionals’ failure to discharge her from psychiatric care. Appellant did not specifically allege that she received improper or negligent care. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the circuit court.
In Sweeney v. Sweeney, is an appeal from the family court’s final divorce decree, in which, Husband argues the court erred in: (1) awarding alimony to Irene M. Sweeney (Wife), (2) apportioning nonmarital property, (3) miscalculating the amount of rental proceeds he deposited in the parties’ joint account during the pendency of litigation, (4) holding him in contempt, and (5) awarding Wife attorney’s fees. Wife cross-appeals, asserting the family court erred in (1) failing to impute her income at the minimum wage, (2) awarding an insufficient amount of alimony, (3) overvaluing marital property, (4) crediting Husband for rental proceeds, and (5) failing to consider all of the necessary factors in determining her attorney’s fees
The court held, inter alia, that: (1) the family court did not err in granting alimony to Wife because it would be inequitable to require Wife to invade her only assets to support herself while Husband may save and continue to draw a substantial salary and dividends from his company; (2) the family court erred in apportioning the HSA established for the parties’ son because it is nonmarital property; and (3) the family court did not err in finding Husband in contempt because Husband willfully violated the temporary order by withdrawing marital funds. Wife raised five issues on cross-appeal: The court held, inter alia: (1) the family court did not err in failing to impute Wife’s income at minimum wage because evidence in the record supports the family court’s conclusion that Wife has the ability to earn at least $1,500 per month; and (2) the family court erred in crediting Husband with $4,500 in rental proceeds he deposited in the Morgan Stanley account because the rental proceeds accrued before the final divorce decree and any credit to Husband is a windfall. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.