COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Annunziata, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman
PAULINE F. WALI
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0090-02-4 PER CURIAM
AUGUST 13, 2002
ABDUL F. WALI
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Marcus D. Williams, Judge
(T. James Binder, on brief), for appellant.
No brief for appellee.
Pauline F. Wali (wife) appeals the decision of the circuit
court granting Abdul F. Wali's (husband) motion for modification
of child support. On appeal, wife contends that the trial court
erred by maintaining the court's previous finding that she was
voluntarily under-employed and imputing income to her on that
basis. Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude
that this appeal is without merit. 1 Accordingly, we summarily
affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to husband as the party
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
1
We deny husband's motion to dismiss.
prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250,
391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990).
Background
The parties were divorced by final decree. The court
granted wife custody of the parties' infant daughter and ordered
husband to pay child support by a custody, visitation, and
support order entered on July 14, 2000. In that order, the
court deviated from the presumptive guideline amount of child
support, finding wife was voluntarily under-employed. The court
imputed to her monthly income of $4,134.
On September 14, 2001, husband filed a petition for
modification of child support. He argued changed circumstances
warranted a reduction in the amount he was required to pay to
wife. Wife moved and enrolled their daughter into a different
daycare, which cost less than the previous school.
Additionally, husband's health insurance premiums for daughter's
coverage increased.
The trial court reduced husband's child support obligation
to $549 monthly. The court explained that it was continuing to
deviate from the presumptive amount due to the imputation of
income to wife. In its order, the court noted "there has been
no change in circumstances regarding the mother's voluntary
[underemployment] since the last Order of this Court."
- 2 -
Analysis
Mother argues the trial court erred by relying on the
finding in the earlier order that she was voluntarily
under-employed.
"The burdens of production and persuasion are generally
allocated to the party seeking to disturb the status quo."
Stockdale v. Stockdale, 33 Va. App. 179, 184, 532 S.E.2d 332,
335 (2000). Wife sought to alter the court's finding that she
was voluntarily under-employed. However, she failed to
demonstrate a change in circumstances warranting an alteration
of the previous order. "'In the absence of a material change in
circumstance, reconsideration . . . would be barred by
principles of res judicata.'" Bostick v. Bostick-Bennett, 23
Va. App. 527, 535, 478 S.E.2d 319, 323 (1996) (citation
omitted). Credible evidence supports the trial court's decision
that no material change in circumstances warranted a change in
the imputation of income to wife.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial
court. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
- 3 -