COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Annunziata and
Bumgardner
MARGARET PINGLEY ARBUCKLE
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1491-97-4 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
APRIL 28, 1998
EZRA EARL ARBUCKLE
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CULPEPER COUNTY
John R. Cullen, Judge
(Lois G. Pearson; Pearson and Pearson, P.C.,
on brief), for appellant. Appellant
submitting on brief.
No brief or argument for appellee.
By decree July 9, 1996, the Circuit Court of Culpeper County
granted a divorce and decreed equitable distribution of the
parties' marital property. That order became final. Among other
provisions, the court ordered Mrs. Arbuckle to pay $30,783.60 to
her former husband. This represented half the value of the
marital assets retained by her less various credits created when
the court awarded possession of assets and payments of debts in
order to carry out the equitable distribution scheme. Mr.
Arbuckle was awarded ownership and possession of a 1994 Chevrolet
Caprice valued at $11,500. That car was titled jointly, and
there was a joint secured loan for its full value. Because Mr.
Arbuckle was not financially responsible, the trial court ordered
the wife to pay the loan and discharge the lien. Anticipating
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
her discharge of his half of the obligation, she was given a
credit of $5,750 that reduced the actual sum she was to pay him.
Two days after the decree, Mr. Arbuckle wrecked the vehicle.
It was a total loss. The insurance carrier paid the lien holder
the full value of the vehicle, and the debt was canceled. Mr.
Arbuckle moved for judgment against Mrs. Arbuckle for $5,750
because she would not agree that she owed that sum in addition to
the amount originally set as the balance due Mr. Arbuckle. The
trial court granted the motion and ordered her to pay $5,750 in
addition to the original sum of $30,783.60. Mrs. Arbuckle
appeals this judgment order that directed her to pay an
additional $5,750. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court.
Under the carefully formulated equitable distribution
decree, the wife was given a credit for her anticipated payment
of her husband's half of the car loan. When the insurance
company paid the loan in full, it satisfied this obligation for
Mrs. Arbuckle. She had received credit for paying the loan, but
she had done nothing to discharge that obligation. In addition,
she was no longer obligated to make payment. By getting credit
in the decree and by getting the benefit of the insurance
carrier's payment of the debt, she received $5,750 more than she
was entitled to receive under the equitable distribution decree.
The action of the trial court was proper and necessary to
adjust the award in light of the events that had occurred after
its entry. The trial court's action was not an improper
modification of a final award, but was rather a proper adjustment
- 2 -
necessary to carry out that which had been decreed previously.
If the court had not modified its first order, Mrs. Arbuckle
would have received the benefit twice. Having acquired
jurisdiction, a court of equity may go on to establish rights and
grant remedies. Erlich v. Hendrick Constr. Co., 217 Va. 108, 225
S.E.2d 665 (1976). We find that the decree of the trial court
properly adapted the equitable distribution decree, and we affirm
the decision.
Affirmed.
- 3 -