Articles Posted in Divorce

In a recent opinion from a Virginia federal court, a husband argued that he was forced to give his ex-wife too much of his military pay in the wake of their divorce. On appeal, the court considered his argument and found that the couple’s divorce agreement clearly violated federal law. Because of this violation, the court sent the case down to a lower court to resolve the husband’s issue.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the husband and wife initially negotiated an agreement at the time of their divorce that set up how much money each party would receive. One central point of contention in the agreement was the division of the husband’s military pay. Ultimately, the parties agreed that the wife would receive a large percentage of the husband’s disposable military retired pay. A year later, however, the husband argued before a court that some aspects of their agreement violated federal law and that he wanted a court to review the order. The wife rejected this argument, stating that under Virginia law, the husband only had 21 days to challenge the order, and because that time had already passed, his challenge was no longer valid.

In response to these arguments, a court decided that it would not consider the husband’s appeal because the 21-day deadline had, in fact, already passed. The husband appealed this decision, and a higher court decided it would consider the issues the husband raised.

Continue Reading

Posted in:
Updated:

A man recently appealed a trial court’s findings in the divorce proceedings between him and his ex-wife. At trial, the court had awarded the wife a lump sum for the value of the couple’s home as well as the value of attorney’s fees. On appeal, the husband argued both of these values were unreasonably high. The court disagreed, sustaining the original verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the wife filed a petition for divorce after having been married to her husband for ten years. After the filing, the husband and wife significantly disagreed on two issues: distribution of money for the value of the couple’s house and the awarding of attorney’s fees.

During the couple’s marriage, the monthly mortgage payments were divided equally between the parties. At trial, the wife’s attorney emphasized that she had been the person contributing financially to the improvement of the property, doing the grocery shopping, and taking care of the couple’s children the majority of the time. The husband, on the other hand, had “made negative nonmonetary contributions” to the home by hoarding and diminishing the value of the residence. The court used this evidence, along with the mortgage balance on the house, to determine that the husband owed the wife approximately $38,000 for the value of this asset.

Continue Reading

Posted in:
Updated:

Virginia considers marriage an economic partnership. As such, it is in the majority of states that follow equitable distribution law for the division of marital property and debts during divorce. Under Virginia Code Section 20-107.3, courts must engage in a fair division of marital property and debts. While some couples may agree amongst themselves on the fair division of marital property, conflicts often arise and many must rely on the courts to decide on their behalf. The goal of the court is to encourage fair and equitable results. However, despite its name, equitable distribution does not necessarily mean 50/50 distribution. Instead, it is a way for the court to divide assets in a manner that considers each party’s earning capability, separate assets, and role in the marriage.

Under the lens of Virginia divorce law, courts classify property as either marital property or separate property. The law defines marital property as jointly-owned property and all other property obtained from marriage to separation. In contrast, separate property refers to property that belonged to only one party before their marriage. Property that was once separate property but then used for the benefit of the marriage may turn into marital property.

Common examples of marital property are the couple’s home titled in both spouse’s names or a retirement account accumulated during the marriage, even if the account only lists one spouse’s name. Further martial property may include vehicles, electronics, and business interests. Separate property includes items like cars given to one spouse, an inheritance, and separately maintained cash gifts from a third party. It is important to note that gifts from one spouse to the other are marital property.

Posted in:
Updated:

A Virginia appellate court recently addressed a wife’s appeal from a final divorce decree. Amongst several issues, the wife argued that the circuit court erred by denying her continuance request. According to the record, the couple married in 2008 and began separation and divorce proceedings in 2018. Following several hearings, the parties entered into a separation agreement in 2020. The separation agreement was limited to equitable distribution matters, and the remaining issues were slated for a hearing in March 2020. However, because of the pandemic, the hearing was moved to August 2020.

On the day of the hearing, the wife contacted the clerk explaining that she had a fever and possible COVID-19 contact. The court failed to provide the woman guidance, and the woman did not appear at the hearing. As such, the court decided the case solely on the husband’s evidence. The wife objected to the final decree; however, the court denied the motion.

The wife argues that the lower court abused its discretion by failing to grant her a continuance or provide alternative arrangements to participate in the hearing. Virginia’s rule governing continuance provides that a court abuses its discretion “when a relevant factor that should have been given significant weight is not considered” and when the court considers an irrelevant factor, and when all proper factors are considered, but the court “commits a clear error of judgment.”

Posted in: and
Updated:

The state appeals court recently issued a decision in a divorce case involving a motion to amend spousal support. The parties’ divorce decree was entered in July 2019, and neither party appealed. During this time, the husband was president and sole employee of a home building company. The wife filed a petition arguing that the husband did not pay spousal support on time; in response, the husband moved to reduce spousal support. During proceedings, the husband conceded that his business received COVID-19 relief, and he failed to show evidence that he was pursuing additional work. However, he argued that his failure to pay was not due to willfulness but rather his inability to pay. Amongst other findings, the court found in favor of the wife and ordered the husband to pay support to cover the arrearage. The husband appealed several findings, including the trial court’s failure to reduce spousal support.

Under Virginia law, upon petition, a court may increase, decrease, or terminate spousal support and maintenance. The party moving for the change must establish a “material change in circumstances” that “warrants a modification of support.” The material change must involve the dependent spouse’s financial needs or the ability of the supporting spouse to pay. Trial courts maintain broad discretion in determining whether a material change warrants a modification. Further, appellate courts must afford the trial court with deference when reviewing these matters.

In this case, the court determined that while there was a material change in circumstances, the husband failed to prove that the change warranted a reduction. Although the husband showed that COVID-19 brought slowdowns in the home building industry, he failed to disclose his finances fully. Further, the husband failed to meet his burden to seek other employment because he did not seek or apply for any other job. In this case, it was not the wife’s burden to establish a need for support, and instead, it was the husband’s burden to show that the wife’s need for support changed. Ultimately, the appellate court found that the trial court evaluated the parties’ circumstances and did not err in their decision to deny the husband’s motion to reduce spousal support.

Posted in: and
Updated:
Contact Information