COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Overton
JERRY WAYNE CARPER
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0467-01-3 PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 4, 2001
DEBRA ROACH CARPER
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
John J. McGrath, Jr., Judge
(Jerry W. Carper, pro se, on briefs).
(H. David O'Donnell, on brief), for appellee.
Jerry W. Carper (husband) appeals the decision of the circuit
court awarding him a no fault divorce from Debra R. Carper (wife).
On appeal, husband contends the trial court erred in (1)
determining the true value of the marital residence, (2) dividing
the marital property, (3) determining the value and ownership of
the parties' personal property, and (4) awarding spousal support
to wife. Husband asks that the trial court's judgment be reversed
and the case remanded to determine the proper division of the
parties' property. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the
parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.1
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
1
Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss. We deny that
motion.
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 appellee as the party
prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250,
391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990).
Procedural Background
The parties were married in August 1982. In December 1999,
husband filed a bill of complaint seeking a divorce from wife. In
January 2001, the trial court heard evidence on the issues of
grounds of divorce, equitable distribution, permanent spousal
support, and attorney's fees. On January 23, 2001, the court
granted husband a divorce a vinulo matrimonii from wife pursuant
to Code § 20-91(9). The court further found that the value of the
marital residence was $95,000, divided the marital estate, and
awarded wife spousal support of $350 per month.
Analysis
I.
Both parties presented evidence as to the value of the
marital residence. Husband's appraisal valued the property at
$116,000 and wife's at $93,700. The trial court determined that
the property was worth $95,000.
"Where experts offer conflicting testimony, it is within
the discretion of the trial court to select either opinion."
Rowe v. Rowe, 24 Va. App. 123, 140, 480 S.E.2d 760, 768 (1997).
- 2 -
The trial court's determination that the marital residence was
worth $95,000 was supported by the evidence presented. "We will
not disturb the trial court's finding of the value of an asset
unless the finding is plainly wrong or unsupported by the
evidence." Shooltz v. Shooltz, 27 Va. App. 264, 275, 498 S.E.2d
437, 442 (1998).
II.
The trial court noted that it considered all the statutory
factors as set forth in Code § 20-107.3(E). The court listed the
assets belonging to the parties and determined the value of the
marital estate. The court awarded husband $45,500 in marital
equity and awarded wife $59,000.
The fact that husband received less than wife from the
marital estate did not amount to an abuse of discretion. The
commissioner listed the factors warranting a minimum lump sum
payment to wife. "The term 'equitable distribution' does not
mean 'equal distribution.'" Marion v. Marion, 11 Va. App. 659,
663, 401 S.E.2d 432, 435 (1991). We cannot say the trial court
abused its discretion.
III.
Pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(A), upon decreeing a divorce, a
court may
determine the legal title as between the
parties, and the ownership and value of all
property, real or personal, tangible or
intangible, of the parties and shall
consider which of such property is separate
- 3 -
property, which is marital property, and
which is part separate and part marital
property . . . . The court shall determine
the value of any such property as of the
date of the evidentiary hearing on the
evaluation issue.
The parties stipulated to the value of the personalty listed on
the appraisal conducted by an independent appraiser. Wife
testified that husband purchased several expensive musical
instruments and pieces of equipment during the marriage.
Husband removed these items prior to the appraisal. The trial
court found that the parties' personal property was distributed
equitably and ordered that each party retain as his or her
marital share of the personal property those items already in
that party's possession. "[D]ecisions concerning equitable
distribution rest within the sound discretion of the trial court
and will not be reversed on appeal unless plainly wrong or
unsupported by the evidence." McDavid v. McDavid, 19 Va. App.
406, 407-08, 451 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1994). Although the value of
wife's share was greater than that of husband's, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in its division of the marital
personalty.
IV.
"Whether and how much spousal support will be awarded is a
matter of discretion for the trial court." Barker v. Barker, 27
Va. App. 519, 527, 500 S.E.2d 240, 244 (1998). "In fixing the
amount of the spousal support award, . . . the court's ruling
- 4 -
will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a clear
abuse of discretion. We will reverse the trial court only when
its decision is plainly wrong or without evidence to support
it." Gamble v. Gamble, 14 Va. App. 558, 574, 421 S.E.2d 635,
644 (1992) (citations omitted).
Husband works full time as a carpenter, earning $2,000 per
month. Wife, a receptionist at a nursing home, earns $1,200 per
month. Wife testified that husband discouraged her from working
during their marriage. She also explained that she has a
medical disability which prevents her from performing certain
types of work. Wife explained that she struggled to make ends
meet. The record demonstrates wife's need of support and
husband's ability to pay.
"In setting the amount of support, the court must consider
the factors listed in Code § 20-107.1, including the financial
condition of the parties, the distribution of the marital
estate, the tax consequences, and other factors related to the
equities between the parties." Taylor v. Taylor, 27 Va. App.
209, 216-17, 497 S.E.2d 916, 919 (1998). The trial court
considered the relevant factors listed in Code § 20-107.1, and
we find no abuse of discretion in its award of spousal support
to wife.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial
court. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
- 5 -