COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
LARRY ANDREW PANGLE
v. Record No. 0561-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
GWEN HALL PANGLE SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY
Thomas D. Horne, Judge
(Gary V. Davis, on brief), for appellant.
(Richard R. Saunders, Jr.; Hanes, Sevila, Saunders &
McCahill, on brief), for appellee.
Larry Andrew Pangle (husband) appeals the equitable
distribution decision of the circuit court awarding certain
interests and payments to Gwen Hall Pangle (wife). Husband
raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial
court erred in awarding wife $60,000 for her interest in the
marital home; (2) whether the trial court erred in awarding wife
$17,601 as her share of husband's retirement benefits received
since the date of the parties' separation; and (3) whether the
trial court erred in ordering husband to pay $5,000 toward an
outstanding credit card bill. 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.
"[T]he chancellor is necessarily vested with
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
broad discretion in the discharge of the
duties the statute [Code § 20-107.3] imposes
upon him. Unless it appears from the record
that the chancellor has abused his
discretion, that he has not considered or has
misapplied one of the statutory mandates, or
that the evidence fails to support the
findings of fact underlying his resolution of
the conflict in the equities, the
chancellor's equitable distribution award
will not be reversed on appeal."
Brown v. Brown, 5 Va. App. 238, 244-45, 361 S.E.2d 364, 368
(1987) (citation omitted).
I. Marital Home
"Equitable distribution is predicated upon the philosophy
that marriage represents an economic partnership requiring that
upon dissolution each partner should receive a fair portion of
the property accumulated during the marriage." Aster v. Gross, 7
Va. App. 1, 5, 371 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1988). The statute provides
a means to implement that philosophy where, as here, marital
assets are used to improve and retain separate property.
In the case of the increase in value of
separate property during the marriage, such
increase in value shall be marital property
only to the extent that marital property or
the personal efforts of either party have
contributed to such increases, provided that
any such personal efforts must be significant
and result in substantial appreciation of the
separate property.
Code § 20-107.3(A)(3)(a).
The trial court determined that the marital residence, which
was separately titled in husband's name and eighty to ninety
percent completed prior to the parties' marriage, was part
2
husband's separate property and part marital property. The total
separate and marital contributions used to acquire, improve, and
retain the marital home equaled $50,400. Of that amount, $16,000
represented the value of the land given to husband by his parents
prior to the parties' marriage. The remaining contributions were
marital, and included $19,900 in principal payments on two loans
and $14,500 in increased value through the addition of land-
scaping and a deck. The trial court noted that "to the extent
the increase in the value of real estate and improvements are
traceable to such [marital] payments, such increase constitutes
marital property subject to equitable distribution." The court
then determined that the portion of the current net equity of
$178,400 traceable to marital contributions was $121,833. The
court awarded wife $60,000.
The court's award of an interest in the marital home to wife
complied with the statutory guidelines, was supported by credible
evidence, and was not an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we
affirm the decision of the trial court.
II. Pension
Husband challenges the decision of the trial court awarding
wife thirty-five percent of the marital share of the pension
payments already drawn by husband during the period following the
parties' last separation. Husband alleges that he is being
required to pay twice, because his retirement income was included
in the computation of spousal and child support.
3
Under the parties' consent decree, husband agreed to pay
wife $425 per month in spousal support until January 1, 1996.
However, wife's right to receive a portion of the marital share
of husband's pension under Code § 20-107.3(G) is separate from
her right to maintenance and support under Code § 20-107.1. The
fact that husband began to draw his pension prior to the
equitable distribution hearing does not reduce the amount wife is
entitled to receive of the total marital share of husband's
retirement benefits.
The court considered the statutory factors and made its
decision in accordance with Code § 20-107.3(G). We find no error
in the decision of the trial court to grant wife a cash award
equal to wife's interest in the pension payments already drawn by
husband after the parties' separation.
III. Visa Debt
The court also awarded wife $5,000 as payment towards an
outstanding Visa credit card debt. Wife presented evidence that
the card was issued in 1985 and both husband and wife were
authorized users. Wife testified that the balance at the time
the parties separated was approximately $6,000. Wife also
testified that the card was used to buy clothes for the parties'
children as well as to purchase items for the home.
Therefore, as credible evidence supports the trial court's
finding that the outstanding balance on the Visa card was marital
debt, we affirm the decision of the trial court awarding wife
4
$5,000 as payment on the outstanding balance.
5
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
6