COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
DEBRA R. SUTHERLAND
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0943-96-3 PER CURIAM
NOVEMBER 26, 1996
DENNIS B. SUTHERLAND
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
Charles H. Smith, Jr., Judge
(Carl E. McAfee, on brief), for appellant.
(R. Wayne Austin; Johnson, Scyphers & Austin,
on brief), for appellee.
Debra R. Sutherland (wife) appeals the decision of the
circuit court reducing the monthly spousal support paid by
Dennis B. Sutherland (husband). Wife contends that there was
insufficient evidence to establish a substantial change in
circumstances warranting a reduction in spousal support and that
the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a reduction.
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.
Code § 20-109 provides that "[u]pon petition of either party
the court may increase, decrease, or terminate spousal support
and maintenance that may thereafter accrue . . . as the
circumstances may make proper." "The moving party in a petition
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
for modification of support is required to prove both a material
change in circumstances and that this change warrants a
modification of support." Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 8 Va.
App. 601, 605, 383 S.E.2d 28, 30 (1989). "[T]he 'circumstances'
which make 'proper' an increase, reduction or cessation of
spousal support under Code § 20-109 are financial and economic
ones." Hollowell v. Hollowell, 6 Va. App. 417, 419, 369 S.E.2d
451, 452-53 (1988).
The sole change in circumstances since the time of the
previous hearing was that wife began working part-time. At the
time of these trial court proceedings, wife worked twenty to
thirty hours per week and earned approximately $210 per week.
Husband's earnings and expenses had not changed. We cannot say
the trial court erred in ruling that wife's increased income of
approximately $800 a month was a material change in
circumstances.
The trial court then determined that wife's increased
monthly income justified a reduction in husband's spousal
support. At the time of the previous hearing, wife was
recovering from surgery and was not employed. She was not
employed at the time of the parties' divorce, although she
testified that she was sporadically employed. While her new
employment was part-time, wife indicated that she was "not
actively seeking additional employment, . . . [had] no job
application pending for any additional work, nor [was] she
2
seeking additional income at this time." Based upon the evidence
of an increase in wife's income, we cannot say the trial court
abused its discretion by reducing wife's monthly spousal support
by $200.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
3