Koontz v. Koontz

Because this opinion is the fruit of the “poisonous tree” of Whiting v. Whiting, 183 W.Va. 451, 396 S.E.2d 413 (1990), I dissent. Once again the majority opinion is based on a misunderstanding of human nature, an incorrect statutory interpretation and a flawed analysis of legislative intent. See Whiting, Id. (Neely, C.J., dissenting). *482The decision by the majority in this case highlights the failures of Whiting.

The issue in this case concerned the interest Mrs. Koontz had in a jointly titled house and the bank account, both of which came from insurance proceeds paid on a house owned by Mr.…