Opinion
Record No. 1016-93-1
November 30, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ROBERT B. CROMWELL, JR., JUDGE.
(Leonard D. Levine; Christie Kantor, on brief), for appellant.
(Glenn R. Croshaw; Michael R. Davis; Croshaw, Beale, Hauser Lewis, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Eleanor Osborne (wife) appeals the decision of the trial court setting the amount of monthly spousal and child support payments due from Michael Warren Osborne (husband). She contends that the court erred in failing to impute income to husband. 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 trial court. Rule 5A:27.
Evidence regarding the issues of child and spousal support was heard by a commissioner in chancery. "The commissioner's report is deemed to be prima facie correct." Brown v. Brown, 11 Va. App. 231, 236, 397 S.E.2d 545, 548 (1990). "The decree confirming the commissioner's report is presumed to be correct and will not be disturbed if it is reasonably supported by substantial, competent, and credible evidence." Brawand v. Brawand, 1 Va. App. 305, 308, 338 S.E.2d 651, 652 (1986). "'The burden is on the party who alleges reversible error to show by the record that reversal is the remedy to which he is entitled.'" Lutes v. Alexander, 14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1992) (citation omitted).
The trial judge accepted the commissioner's computation of child support based upon the statutory guidelines, and awarded wife $150.00 a month in spousal support and $680.00 a month in child support. Code § 20-108.2. Wife contends that the trial judge erred in failing to impute income to husband because husband intentionally reduced his income by retiring from the Navy to return to college. She contends that because husband was voluntarily underemployed, the presumptive correctness of the statutory amount of child support was rebutted. Code § 20-108.1(B) (3).
Husband testified that he enlisted in the Navy in 1964, but in 1992 he was barred from reenlisting because of health problems. At the time of the hearing, husband had retired and was awaiting a determination on his request for disability status.
Wife testified that during the marriage husband had planned to retire after thirty years in the Navy and then return to college. She presented no evidence to refute husband's testimony that his retirement after approximately twenty-eight years was involuntary.
The trial judge's decision was reasonably supported by substantial, competent, and credible evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. Husband's testimony, coupled with wife's corroborating testimony concerning husband's college plans, supports the judge's decision. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.