Opinion
Record No. 1311-94-4
Decided: March 14, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY, James L. Berry, Judge
(Roger A. Inger; Massie, Inger, Boyd Iden, on brief), for appellant.
(Stephen G. Butler; McKee Butler, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Billy Lee Frye (husband) appeals the equitable distribution decision of the circuit court awarding $20,000 to Mary Elizabeth Edmonds Frye (wife). 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.
"Fashioning an equitable distribution award lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge and that award will not be set aside unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Srinivasan v. Srinivasan, 10 Va. App. 728, 732, 396 S.E.2d 675, 678 (1990). "Unless it appears from the record that the trial judge has not considered or has misapplied one of the statutory mandates, this Court will not reverse on appeal." Ellington v. Ellington, 8 Va. App. 48, 56, 378 S.E.2d 626, 630 (1989).
The record indicates the marital home was titled in husband's name only, but substantial improvements were made by wife after the parties were married. While husband testified that the home was substantially completed prior to the parties' marriage on June 18, 1988, the construction agreement for the house was signed by husband on June 28, 1988. Mortgage payments were made from the couple's joint checking account to which both parties contributed. The value of the property rose from $7,600 in 1988 for the unimproved real estate to $102,300 in 1991 for the real estate and structure.
Pursuant to Code Sec. 20-107.3, the trial court found that wife's "significant personal efforts" resulted in "substantial appreciation" in the value of the house owned separately by husband. The court considered the statutory factors, particularly Code Sec. 20-107.3(E) (1), (2), (6) and (8), and found that husband's testimony lacked credibility.
We cannot say the decision of the trial court to award wife $20,000 as her share of the parties' marital assets was plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.