COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
PAUL E. WILLIAMS
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2122-97-4 PER CURIAM
APRIL 21, 1998
LUCILLE I. WILLIAMS
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Dennis J. Smith, Judge
(Edward V. O'Connor, Jr.; Byrd, Mische,
Bevis, Bowen, Joseph & O'Connor, on briefs),
for appellant.
(Dennis M. Hottell; Carolyn T. Hogans;
Dennis M. Hottell & Associates, on brief),
for appellee.
Paul E. Williams appeals the decision of the circuit court
awarding spousal support to his wife, Lucille I. Williams. The
husband contends that the trial judge failed to properly consider
(1) the parties' earning capacities, obligations, and financial
resources; (2) the standard of living established during the
marriage; (3) the property interests of the parties, and (4) the
evidence concerning the value of an outstanding marital debt.
Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude
that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily
affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Spousal Support
The husband challenges the trial judge's determination of
spousal support under the statutory factors set out in Code
§ 20-107.1. On appeal, we review the trial judge's decision for
an abuse of discretion.
In awarding spousal support, the chancellor
must consider the relative needs and
abilities of the parties. He is guided by
the nine factors that are set forth in Code
§ 20-107.1. When the chancellor has given
due consideration to these factors, his
determination will not be disturbed on appeal
except for a clear abuse of discretion.
Collier v. Collier, 2 Va. App. 125, 129, 341 S.E.2d 827, 829
(1986).
Parties' Earning Capacities, Obligations
and Financial Resources
The husband contends that the trial judge failed to properly
consider the parties' earning capacities, obligations and
financial resources. Specifically, he argued that the judge
erred by failing to impute income to wife.
Although a party seeking spousal support is obligated to
earn as much as is reasonably possible in order to reduce the
amount of support needed, the decision whether to impute income
is left to the discretion of the trial judge. See Srinivasan v.
Srinivasan, 10 Va. App. 728, 734, 396 S.E.2d 675, 679 (1990).
The evidence proved that the wife had a high-school degree and
worked for the same insurance company since 1978. She worked
twenty-eight hours a week in a position that was not available
2
full-time. Her annual earnings from 1994 through 1997 ranged
from $17,044 to $17,500. The trial judge found that wife "is
exercising the full amount of her earning capacity."
The husband earned from $122,608 to $133,271 annually
between 1994 and 1997. Although he earned additional income as
an adjunct professor and an administrative judge, the trial judge
found that his extra income was uncertain at the time of trial.
The trial judge determined that husband had a "significantly
greater" earning capacity than wife.
The trial judge also determined that the parties' joint real
estate holdings totaled $315,038 in equity, of which wife
received $166,300 and husband received $148,738. The wife also
received a $15,000 monetary award payable upon the sale of the
first of two pieces of realty. Both parties were ordered to bear
costs associated with the property they received, except that the
wife was ordered to share equally in any liability resulting from
a tenant's suit on certain property awarded to the husband.
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the trial
judge's factual findings are supported by the evidence. We find
no basis to support the husband's arguments that the spousal
support award failed to take into consideration the parties'
financial obligations and resources and that the judge's
distribution improperly increased wife's financial resources and
diminished his.
Standard of Living Established During the Marriage
3
The husband also contends that the trial judge failed to
properly consider the standard of living established during the
marriage. The judge found that "the standard of living during
the marriage increased until it was very good. They lived in
fine homes, vacationed a few times a year." The record
establishes that the trial judge considered this statutory
factor. The evidence supports the judge's findings.
Parties' Property Interests
The husband further contends that the trial judge failed to
consider the parties' property interests, particularly the
income-producing potential of the property awarded to the wife.
At trial, the husband introduced evidence indicating that, in the
past, expenses attributable to the parties' rental property
regularly exceeded the income. The husband testified that one of
the properties which was later awarded to wife, "has proven,
lately, to be a disaster" due to problems collecting rent from or
evicting the tenants. The evidence does not demonstrate that the
trial judge abused his discretion when considering this factor.
Marital Debt
Finally, the husband argues that the trial judge erred in
valuing at $4,000 an outstanding debt owed to the parties from
previous tenants. The husband had not located the former tenants
at the time of trial, and he testified that the debt "is not
going to be collected if I can't find them." However, husband
did not testify that he had terminated efforts to collect the
4
debt. Therefore, we find no error in the trial judge's valuation
of the debt at $4,000.
For these reasons, we hold that the trial judge considered
the statutory factors and made factual findings that are
supported by evidence. Because the trial judge's determination
of spousal support was not a clear abuse of discretion, we
summarily affirm the decision.
Affirmed.
5
Paul E. Williams v. Lucille I. Williams
Combined Opinion