COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
DAVID STEWART JONES
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0139-97-3 PER CURIAM
JULY 1, 1997
ARLEEN CATHERINE JONES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG
Mosby G. Perrow, III, Judge
(Gregory P. Cochran; Caskie & Frost, on
brief), for appellant.
(James G. Hunter, III; Jennifer E. Stille;
O'Keeffe & Spies, on brief), for appellee.
David Stewart Jones (husband) appeals the equitable
distribution decision of the circuit court. Husband contends
that the trial judge erred in (1) setting the amount of monthly
spousal support paid to Arleen Catherine Jones (wife); (2)
awarding wife a fifty percent interest in Advertising Design,
Inc.; and (3) failing to value and allocate the parties' personal
property and household furnishings. 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. Rule 5A:27.
Spousal Support
"The determination whether a spouse is entitled to support,
and if so how much, is a matter within the discretion of the
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
[trial judge] 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 determining an
award of spousal support, the trial judge must consider the
factors listed in Code § 20-107.1. See Collier v. Collier, 2 Va.
App. 125, 129, 341 S.E.2d 827, 829 (1986). The trial judge,
however, is not required to quantify or elaborate what weight or
consideration it has given to each factor, as long as the judge's
findings have support in the evidence presented. See Woolley v.
Woolley, 3 Va. App. 337, 345, 349 S.E.2d 422, 426 (1986).
Wife presented evidence that she had monthly expenses of
$3,466, monthly earnings of $1,625, and monthly shortfalls of
approximately $2,000. The trial judge awarded wife $1,500 in
monthly spousal support. In light of wife's needs and husband's
ability to pay, we find no error.
The trial judge considered the statutory factors, which
include "provisions made with regard to the marital property
under Code § 20-107.3." The award of spousal support was made
contemporaneously with the trial judge's determination of the
value of the parties' marital assets and division of that value.
The record does not support the husband's argument that the
trial judge failed to consider the statutory factors.
Husband argues that the "total" amount of monthly support,
including child support, is excessive. That argument is without
merit. The amount of child support awarded is not a statutory
2
factor to be considered by the trial judge when determining
spousal support. See Lambert v. Lambert, 10 Va. App. 623,
628-29, 395 S.E.2d 207, 210 (1990). Accordingly, we hold that
the trial judge's award of support is supported by the record and
was not an abuse of discretion.
Advertising Design, Inc.
The parties agreed that Advertising Design, Inc. was a
marital asset. The parties did not agree on the value of the
business, and both parties presented evidence as to its worth.
The trial judge valued the business at $175,000, well within the
estimates of $159,000 and $238,958 presented by the parties'
experts.
The record indicates that the parties agreed to an equal
division of their marital assets, except for Advertising Design,
Inc. While there is no presumption favoring equal division of
marital property in Virginia, see Alphin v. Alphin, 15 Va. App.
395, 404, 424 S.E.2d 572, 577 (1992), neither does an equal
division demonstrate error.
In this instance, although husband was the primary wage
earner throughout most of the marriage, the parties jointly
assumed the risks associated with husband's business. Marital
assets, including the home, were posted as collateral for
business loans. The parties worked as a unit for many of their
years of marriage.
We find no error in the trial judge's award of fifty percent
3
of the value of the business to the wife.
Personal Property
Husband contends that the trial judge erred in failing to
value and allocate the parties' personal property and household
furnishings. The record indicates that husband's sole evidence
regarding these items was his estimate that unspecified
"household furnishings" were worth $5,000.
The litigants have the burden to present
evidence sufficient for the court to
discharge its duty. When the party with the
burden of proof on an issue fails for lack of
proof, he cannot prevail on that question.
"[T]he burden is always on the parties to
present sufficient evidence to provide the
basis on which a proper determination can be
made . . . ."
Bowers v. Bowers, 4 Va. App. 610, 617, 359 S.E.2d 546, 550
(1987). Husband failed to present sufficient evidence from which
the trial judge could determine the items to be distributed and
their value. Therefore, the trial judge did not err in failing
to distribute or value these unspecified items.
Accordingly, the decree is summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.
4