# Carol Kinsinger v. Todd Pethel

> West Virginia Supreme Court · November 13, 2014 · 234 W. Va. 463

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9804716

## Case

- **Full name:** Carol KINSINGER, Respondent Below, Petitioner v. Todd PETHEL, Petitioner Below, Respondent
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 13, 2014
- **Citations:** 234 W. Va. 463; 766 S.E.2d 410; 2014 W. Va. LEXIS 1211
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Ketchum
- **Judges:** Benjamin, Ketchum
- **Nature of suit:** Family
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9804716

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reversing application of laches based on delay in preparing QDRO and finding that underlying equitable distribution obligation contained in settlement agreement was unimpaired
- discussing doctrine of laches

## Opinion text

Justice KETCHUM,
concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part:
I agree that Mr. Pethel should not be held in contempt. I disagree with our holding that Ms. Kinsinger shall be granted a money judgment against Mr. Pethel in the amount of $4,018.15, less any appropriate credits.
The doctrine of laches bars claims when a person unreasonably delays in asserting a claim and the delay works to the disadvantage or prejudice the defendant. Grose v. Grose, 222 W.Va. 722 , 671 S.E.2d 727 (2008). In finding that Ms. Kinsinger’s claim was barred by the doctrine of laches, the circuit courts order focused on her six-year delay in submitting an order granting her a share of Mr. Pethel’s retirement benefits. However, the order failed to discuss whether the delay caused any disadvantage or prejudice to Mr. Pethel.
Although no finding was made by the circuit court that there was not any disadvantage or prejudice to Mr. Pethel, the majority opinion orders that a money judgment be entered against Mr. Pethel. There is no evidence in the record to support this mandate. The case should have been remanded to the circuit court for factual findings as to whether Ms. Kinsinger’s delay caused any disadvantages or prejudice to Mr. Pethel.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9804716. Public record. Not legal advice.