From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hutchins v. Hutchins

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jun 8, 1993
Record No. 2201-92-2 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 8, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 2201-92-2

June 8, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH DENNIS F. MCMURRAN, JUDGE.

(J. Barbour Rixey; Rixey and Rixey, on brief), for appellant.

(Robert L. Sondej, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

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


Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.

William David Hutchins ("husband") appeals the judgment of the trial court increasing the amount of spousal support he pays to his former wife, June Allen Hutchins ("wife"). Husband argues that wife failed to prove a change in circumstance which would entitle her to such an increase.

Husband and wife were divorced in 1981 after thirty years of marriage. At the time of the divorce, husband was fifty years old and was receiving Coast Guard retirement as well as a salary. Wife was forty-seven years old and had never worked. The couple had four grown children. Wife was awarded $850 per month spousal support. In August 1992, wife petitioned for an increase in spousal support, claiming that her expenses have increased over eleven years. She also established that husband's income has almost doubled since the original award was made. Husband did not dispute the increase in his income. Rather, he claimed that wife should have sought employment during this period, and denied that she had established an increase in her expenses. The trial court heard evidence, then granted wife an increase in support of $300 per month.

Under Code § 20-109, the court may modify an award of spousal support "as the circumstances may make proper." Either party may move to modify support. The moving party must prove both a material change in circumstances since the last award and that this change warrants modification. Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 8 Va. App. 601, 605, 383 S.E.2d 28, 30 (1989). Other than death or remarriage, the circumstances which may justify such a change are financial and economic ones.Hollowell v. Hollowell, 6 Va. App. 417, 419, 369 S.E.2d 451, 452-53 (1988). The amount of spousal support to be awarded is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that an injustice has been done. Dukelow v. Dukelow, 2 Va. App. 21, 27, 341 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1986). On appeal, the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below, giving that party's evidence the benefit of all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). "When a trial court hears evidence ore tenus, its findings are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support them." Floyd v. Floyd, 1 Va. App. 42, 45, 333 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1985).

The trial court found that wife had carried her burden of proving that both husband's income and wife's expenses had increased. It also found that this change in circumstances warranted an increase of $300 per month in spousal support. We defer to these findings as they are not plainly wrong or without evidence to support them. Id. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the new award. See Dukelow, 2 Va. App. at 27, 341 S.E.2d at 211.

For the reasons stated, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Hutchins v. Hutchins

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jun 8, 1993
Record No. 2201-92-2 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 8, 1993)
Case details for

Hutchins v. Hutchins

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM DAVID HUTCHINS v. JUNE ALLEN HUTCHINS

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia

Date published: Jun 8, 1993

Citations

Record No. 2201-92-2 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 8, 1993)