From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bridgforth v. Bridgforth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Richmond, Virginia
Mar 14, 1995
Record No. 0623-94-2 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 1995)

Opinion

Record No. 0623-94-2

Decided: March 14, 1995

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY, George F. Tidey, Judge

Henry A. Conner, Jr. (Henry A. Conner and Associates, on brief), for appellant.

Frank N. Cowan (Cowan Owen, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Elder


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.


Edward McPhail Bridgforth, Jr. (husband) appeals the trial court's decision to grant Clara Louise Pennington Bridgforth's (wife) motion to quash husband's request for a reduction in spousal support payments. Husband asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to hear his request for a reduction in spousal support, even though husband had not made all payments to wife as required by the court's equitable distribution order. Because no error was committed, we affirm the trial court's ruling.

This appeal arises out of a trial court hearing of February 22, 1994, in which husband requested the trial court to reduce his monthly spousal support obligation to wife. The trial court had granted the parties a divorce on June 19, 1990. As part of the final divorce decree, the trial court ordered husband to pay, in part: (1) the sum of $2,000 per month to wife in spousal support; (2) approximately $19,000 in counsel fees and costs; and (3) an equitable distribution award in five annual installments of approximately $15,000 each, for a total of over $75,000.

By February of 1993, husband had paid wife every installment of monthly spousal support but had paid only $42,401.86 toward his other outstanding debts. The couple's marital residence in Richmond had been transferred to wife pursuant to the trial court's order. However, this transfer failed to satisfy the judgments against husband even though the outstanding counsel fees owed by husband were paid with interest, as was part of the first equitable distribution installment. Thus, at the time of the hearing, $38,000 to $40,000 owed to wife still remained unpaid.

On March 5, 1992 the trial court had ordered that if husband acquired his family's Lunenburg County property (against which wife's judgments were recorded), husband had to pay the judgments against him in full. In October of 1993, husband acquired that property at auction and titled it in his girlfriend's name. Husband acquired a second home in Hanover County, which was also titled in his girlfriend's name. Husband claimed that any funds used to purchase the Hanover County property originated with his girlfriend.

As a basis for modifying his support obligations, husband claimed he was financially unable to continue to pay spousal support and asserted that wife's income had increased after the entry of the court's original award. Husband claimed wife had begun receiving approximately $400 per month as a result of her father's death. Furthermore, husband had numerous judgments against him from other parties, including the I.R.S., and he had over $23,000 in credit card debt.

Wife filed a motion to quash husband's request for a reduction in spousal support. The trial court sustained wife's motion and refused to hear argument on the issue because husband was in default of payments due to wife.

It is well accepted that where "the parties' circumstances change materially, either party may return to the court and seek an adjustment pursuant to the [support] [a]greement." Jennings v. Jennings, 12 Va. App. 1187, 1197, 409 S.E.2d 8, 14 (1991) (citing Code Sec. 20-109). However, this Court has stated that the trial court " may, in its discretion, choose not to entertain such a motion until [a party] has paid any arrearages." Barnhill v. Brooks, 15 Va. App. 696, 703, 427 S.E.2d 209, 214 (1993) (emphasis in original); see Davis v. Davis, 206 Va. 381, 387, 143 S.E.2d 835, 839 (1965); Gloth v. Gloth, 154 Va. 511, 555, 153 S.E. 879, 893 (1930).

In this case, the trial court was presented with credible evidence that husband had the ability to make continued payments to wife and that husband willfully defaulted on his past payments due. Furthermore, husband obligated his resources to pay mortgages on property titled in his girlfriend's name. Because husband was in arrears, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to hear husband's motion to modify the spousal support payments. See Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's ruling.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Bridgforth v. Bridgforth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Richmond, Virginia
Mar 14, 1995
Record No. 0623-94-2 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 1995)
Case details for

Bridgforth v. Bridgforth

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD MCPHAIL BRIDGFORTH, JR. v. CLARA LOUISE PENNINGTON BRIDGFORTH

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Richmond, Virginia

Date published: Mar 14, 1995

Citations

Record No. 0623-94-2 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 1995)