COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
DOUGLAS A. PERRY, SR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1917-97-1 PER CURIAM
MARCH 31, 1998
DORIS E. PERRY
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK
Westbrook J. Parker, Judge
(J. Wayne Sprinkle, on brief), for appellant.
Appellant submitting on brief.
No brief for appellee.
Douglas A. Perry, Sr. (husband) appeals the decision of the
circuit court. Husband contends that the trial court erred by
(1) awarding spousal support to Doris E. Perry (wife); (2)
awarding attorney's fees to wife; and (3) allowing wife to pay
husband one-half the value of marital possessions she retained.
We disagree and affirm the circuit court's decision.
The evidence on equitable distribution was heard by a
commissioner in chancery. The commissioner's report "should be
sustained unless the trial court concludes that the
commissioner's findings are not supported by the evidence." Hill
v. Hill, 227 Va. 569, 576-77, 318 S.E.2d 292, 296 (1984)
(citations omitted). "On appeal, a decree which approves a
commissioner's report will be affirmed unless plainly wrong."
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Id. at 577, 318 S.E.2d at 296. The trial court held a hearing on
spousal support and attorney's fees, and its decision is presumed
to be correct. See Martin v. Pittsylvania County Dep't of Social
Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986).
Spousal Support
"The determination whether a spouse is entitled to support,
and if so how much, is a matter within the discretion of the
court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that
some injustice has been done." Dukelow v. Dukelow, 2 Va. App.
21, 27, 341 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1986).
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).
Husband contends that the trial court erred by awarding wife
spousal support because he lacked the ability to pay support due
to his expenses and outstanding loans. He further contends that
wife did not need spousal support in light of her employment
income and her share of his monthly retirement pay. These
contentions lack merit.
Wife presented evidence that she was unable to meet her
current expenses without borrowing and using credit cards. Her
standard of living had declined since the marriage ended. Wife's
2
health was poor, and her residence needed repairs she was unable
to afford. While wife's estimate of monthly income and expenses
showed a surplus of $47, the listed expenses reflect conservative
cost estimates, with few if any provisions for unexpected
emergencies, medical bills, or extensive home repairs.
Husband's income was almost twice that of wife. Husband's
income and expense statement indicated that he had a monthly
deficit of $1,700, including over $1,200 in monthly debts for
marital and post-separation debts which husband alleged totaled
$25,000.
The trial court indicated that it considered the statutory
factors, in particular the standard of living established during
the marriage, the length of the marriage, the parties' physical
conditions, and their property interests. Inherent in the trial
court's award are its credibility determinations based upon the
parties' testimony regarding their expenses. Evidence supports
the trial court's decision to award wife $600 in monthly support.
Therefore, we affirm its award.
Attorney's Fees
An award of attorney's fees is a matter submitted to the
sound discretion of the trial court and is reviewable on appeal
only for an abuse of discretion. See Graves v. Graves, 4 Va.
App. 326, 333, 357 S.E.2d 554, 558 (1987). The key to a proper
award of counsel fees is reasonableness under all the
circumstances. See McGinnis v. McGinnis, 1 Va. App. 272, 277,
3
338 S.E.2d 159, 162 (1985).
Here, husband presented evidence that he had incurred over
$12,000 in attorney's fees. Wife's counsel indicated that that
amount was reasonable in light of the number of hearings and that
wife's fees were equal to those of husband. Based on the
evidence and the parties' respective abilities to pay, we cannot
say that the award of $6,000 to wife was unreasonable or that the
trial judge abused his discretion in making the award.
Equitable Distribution
Husband contends that the trial court erred when it allowed
wife the option to pay husband one-half the value of any marital
possessions she retained. While husband asserts that "these
items" were important to him, he fails to identify the items to
which he refers or to indicate why they are important to him.
"Statements unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to
the record do not merit appellate consideration. We will not
search the record for errors in order to interpret the
appellant's contention and correct deficiencies in a brief."
Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239
(1992). We do not consider this argument further.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
4
Douglas A. Perry, Sr. v. Doris E. Perry
Combined Opinion