Opinion
Record No. 2281-92-1
August 24, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON WALTER J. FORD, JUDGE.
(Charles E. Haden, on brief), for appellant.
(Kathy Gear Owens, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the circuit court. Rule 5A:27.
On this appeal, Wilbert Latham ("husband") contends that the circuit court erred in failing to set forth either in the record or in the final decree of divorce its reasons for awarding spousal support.
"The determination whether a spouse is entitled to support, and if so how much, is a matter within the discretion of the court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that some injustice has been done." Dukelow v. Dukelow, 2 Va. App. 21, 27, 341 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1986) (citations omitted). "On review, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing in the trial court. Where the trial court's decision is based upon an ore tenus hearing, its determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence in the record to support it."Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 8 Va. App. 601, 605, 383 S.E.2d 28, 30 (1989).
"When the court does not quantify or elaborate on what weight or consideration it has given to each factor [in Code § 20-107.1], we must examine the record to determine if the award is supported by evidence relevant to those factors."Gibson v. Gibson, 5 Va. App. 426, 435, 364 S.E.2d 518, 523 (1988) (citing Woolley v. Woolley, 3 Va. App. 337, 345, 349 S.E.2d 422, 426 (1986)).
Here, the record reveals that on September 1, 1992, the trial judge held an evidentiary hearing, during which he heard evidence regarding the parties' ages, physical and mental condition, earning capacity, debts and income, education levels, property interests, and the duration of the marriage. The "Statement of Facts In Lieu of Reporter's Transcript of Testimony" clearly sets forth the evidence heard by the trial judge on all of these issues.
Specifically, the record reveals that husband, age thirty-eight, a high school graduate with one year of college-level training, was employed as a nurse earning a gross income of $1,679.80 per month. Husband's other financial obligations and pay deductions were detailed in the record. Husband paid only $125 per month for the rental of two residences and he had the use of two vehicles available to him at no cost. These situations were likely to continue.
Bobbie Ann Latham ("wife"), age thirty-three, a high school graduate with one year of college training, quit her $18,000 per year job as a postal clerk in Massachusetts to move to Virginia to be with husband when they married in December 1987. Wife had held various jobs in Virginia with Leggetts, Farm Fresh and other employers. She had been actively seeking permanent employment, accepting temporary employment when available, including temporary employment with the U.S. Postal Service, but she is currently unemployed because of having been laid off due to hard economic times. The personal property of any value belonging to the parties was taken by the husband, and subsequently lost or stolen.
Based upon this record, the award of spousal support in the amount of $300.00 per month is supported by evidence relevant to the factors contained in Code § 20-107.1.
Accordingly, we will not disturb the trial court's ruling on appeal, where as here, the ruling is based on substantial credible evidence, is not plainly wrong, and does not constitute a clear abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.