Opinion
Record No. 0448-93-4
October 5, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY RICHARD B. POTTER, JUDGE.
(John E. Drury, on brief), for appellant.
(Mark Thomas Crossland, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Barrow, Koontz and Bray.
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. As the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we recite them only as necessary to explain our decision.
Charles F. Koehler ("husband") appeals the ruling of the circuit court ordering him to pay $5,000 in attorney's fees incurred by his former wife, Beverly G. Koehler ("wife"). The court ordered the payment to be made by March 1, 1993. Husband asserts that the court abused its discretion in requiring him to pay these costs and in requiring payment within ninety days of the equitable distribution hearing.
The record does not support husband's assertion that the time allowed was less than ninety days. The equitable distribution hearing was held on November 17, 1992, more than three months from the date payment was due.
"'Under familiar principles we view [the] evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. Where . . . the court hears the evidence ore tenus, its finding is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.'" Pommerenke v. Pommerenke, 7 Va. App. 241, 244, 372 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1988) (quoting Martin v. Pittsylvania County Dep't of Social Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986)). Specifically, "[a]n award of attorney's fees is a matter submitted to the trial court's sound discretion and is reviewable on appeal only for an abuse of discretion." Graves v. Graves, 4 Va. App. 326, 333, 357 S.E.2d 554, 558 (1987) (citing Ingram v. Ingram, 217 Va. 27, 29, 225 S.E.2d 362, 364 (1976)).
The trial court is to exercise its discretion "after consideration of the circumstances and equities of the entire case." Davis v. Davis, 8 Va. App. 12, 17, 377 S.E.2d 640, 643 (1989) (citation omitted). "[T]he key to a proper award of counsel fees is the reasonableness under all of the circumstances." McGinnis v. McGinnis, 1 Va. App. 272, 277, 338 S.E.2d 159, 162 (1985).
In this case, wife's counsel submitted a bill detailing the legal services provided. Both parties had submitted financial records regarding their respective assets and incomes. The trial court found that husband's monthly income was greater than that of wife and that he had the superior earning potential. The court also found that husband had sufficient assets to pay the attorney's fees. Based on this evidence, we do not find that either the amount or the timing of the award of attorney's fees was an abuse of discretion or unreasonable under the circumstances.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.