From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Poling v. Poling

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Sep 27, 1994
Record No. 0321-94-4 (Va. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 1994)

Opinion

Record No. 0321-94-4

Decided: September 27, 1994

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, Rosemarie Annunziata, Judge

Affirmed.

(A. Strode Brent, Jr.; Whitestone, Brent, Young Merril, on briefs), for appellant.

(Susan Massie Hicks; Thomas P. Sotelo; Leiner Hicks, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Barrow, Koontz and Bray


MEMORANDUM OPINION

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


Carol Jean Poling (wife) appeals the equitable distribution decision of the circuit court valuing an ongoing dry cleaning business at zero and awarding it to Hubert Wayne Poling (husband). 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.

On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to husband, as the party prevailing below. Pommerenke v. Pommerenke, 7 Va. App. 241, 244, 372 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1988). "Where, as here, 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. Id.

Both parties presented expert testimony on the value of the dry cleaning business. The business was purchased in 1987 for $1.7 million and had annual gross receipts of approximately $1.5 million for 1989 through 1992. However, the outstanding debt on the business was nearly $700,000.00, and both experts agreed that additional expenses were likely to be incurred. While wife's expert valued the business at $1 million, husband's accountant gave the business no value, due to the outstanding debts.

The trial court ruled that "the stock [of Poling Cleaning Centers, Inc.] has no value, therefore, no monetary award is made with respect to this asset. [Husband] shall be solely responsible for all debt associated with Poling Cleaning Centers, Inc."

"In reviewing an equitable distribution award on appeal, we recognize that the trial court's job is a difficult one. Accordingly, we rely heavily on the discretion of the trial judge in weighing the many considerations and circumstances that are presented in each case." Artis v. Artis, 4 Va. App. 132, 137, 354 S.E.2d 812, 815 (1987). Based upon the evidence presented by husband's accountant, we cannot say that the trial court's determination that the stock from the dry cleaning business had no value was plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.

Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Poling v. Poling

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Sep 27, 1994
Record No. 0321-94-4 (Va. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 1994)
Case details for

Poling v. Poling

Case Details

Full title:CAROL JEAN POLING v. HUBERT WAYNE POLING

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia

Date published: Sep 27, 1994

Citations

Record No. 0321-94-4 (Va. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 1994)