Opinion
Record No. 0235-93-4
Decided: August 2, 1994
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WINCHESTER, John E. Wetsel, Jr., Judge
Affirmed.
E. Eugene Gunter, for appellant.
No brief or argument for appellee.
Present: Judges Coleman, Fitzpatrick, and Senior Judge Duff
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
This cause was initiated upon petition of Ronald Lee Buchanan (husband) to increase the child support obligation of his former wife, Darlene Hedges Buchanan (wife). By opinion of this Court in Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 415 S.E.2d 237 (1992), the original disposition of the trial court was reversed and the "matter . . . remanded for a redetermination" of support "in the manner required by Code Sec. 20-108.1." Id. at 57, 415 S.E.2d at 239. Husband now appeals such redetermination, contending that the trial court erroneously computed the gross incomes and expenses of the parties, improperly allocated between them the uninsured medical expenses of their children, and unjustifiably departed from the statutory child support guidelines. We disagree and affirm the decision.
The parties are fully conversant with the record, and a recitation of the facts is unnecessary to the disposition of these issues on appeal.
It is well established that "[o]n review, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing in the trial court." Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 8 Va. App. 601, 605, 383 S.E.2d 28, 30 (1989). "[D]ecisions concerning child support rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence." Barnhill v. Brooks, 15 Va. App. 696, 699, 427 S.E.2d 209, 211 (1993). "[I]t is assumed that the court acted reasonably and the burden rests upon the challenging party to show to the contrary." Conway v. Conway, 10 Va. App. 653, 658, 395 S.E.2d 464, 467 (1990).
In determining child support, there is a rebuttable presumption that the amount computed in accordance with the statutory guidelines, Code Sec. 20-108.2, is the correct award. Code Sections 20-108.1(B) and -108.2(A). However, once the presumptive amount is ascertained, the trial court may, after consideration of "relevant evidence pertaining to [those] factors" specified in Code Sections 20-107.2 and -108.1, conclude that "application of such guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case." Code Sections 20-108.1(B) and -108.2(A); Richardson v. Richardson, 12 Va. App. 18, 21, 401 S.E.2d 894, 896 (1991). The court may then adjust the amount based on such factors, provided any guideline departure is supported by "written findings in the order." Code Sections 20-108.1(B) and -108.2(A); O'Brien v. Rose, 14 Va. App. 960, 964, 420 S.E.2d 246, 248-49 (1992). The order "must identify the factors that justified deviation . . . and explain why and to what extent the factors justified the adjustment" in "enough detail and exactness to allow for effective appellate review of the findings." Richardson, 12 Va. App. at 22, 401 S.E.2d at 897.
Citations to the Code within this opinion reference those statutes which govern this case and not as subsequently amended.
Here, a comprehensive "Opinion and Final Decree" clearly specified the trial court's factual findings and conclusions relative to its determination of guideline support and the reasons which justified its departure from that amount. Husband first asserts that this analysis discloses the improper inclusion of certain deductible business expenses in the court's computation of his statutory "gross income." Code Sec. 20-108.2(C). However, the statute provides only for "deduction of reasonable business expenses," and we are unable to find that the expenses in issue were "reasonable" as a matter of law. Code Sec. 20-108.2(C) (emphasis added). Thus, the trial court's refusal to deduct these costs in ascertaining husband's gross income did not constitute reversible error.
Husband next complains that the trial judge incorrectly omitted from wife's gross income the "gifts" of "her church and . . . friends," monies which he contends are expressly includable pursuant to Code Sec. 20-108.2(C). In explaining its treatment of these funds, the trial court found that they were "derive[d] from the magnanimity of others based upon their individual motivations" with no "reasonable expectation" to "continue in the future." This conclusion is supported by the evidence. Therefore, assuming, without deciding, that this largess constituted gifts contemplated by the statute and, thus, gross income to wife, the trial court would have been justified in adjusting the guideline amount downward to reach the same result, albeit through a different procedural course. See Code Sections 20-107.2(2) and -108.1(B); Smith v. Smith, ___ Va. App. ___ ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ (May 24, 1994).
Lastly, husband challenges the trial court's deviation from the guideline amount and the allocation between the parties of the children's uninsured medical expenses. The record discloses that the court addressed all issues pertinent to child support, including medical costs, in its reconsideration of the case pursuant to the mandate of Buchanan, 14 Va. App. at 57, 415 S.E.2d at 239. The trial judge correctly referenced the controlling statutes and related decisions of this Court, confirmed his consideration of the requisite "factors," reviewed the relevant evidence in detail, and adequately explained and justified his decision to depart from the guidelines. These findings and the resulting conclusions are supported by the evidence, comport with Code Sections 20-107.2, -108.1 and -108.2, and will not be disturbed on appeal.
Husband argues that the trial court improperly considered evidence of wife's regular tithing to her church and "exaggerated, unsupported . . . and false" evidence of her other monthly expenses. However, the record reflects that the trial judge adjusted wife's reported expenses downward from $1536 to $630 to reflect only her "actual expenses for food and shelter." The reduced amount is supported by the record, and husband did not establish that it included improper expenditures.
Affirmed.