From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ragland v. Ragland

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jun 22, 1993
Record No. 2164-92-4 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 2164-92-4

June 22, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY THOMAS A. FORTKORT, JUDGE.

(Brian M. McCormack; Dunn, McCormack, MacPherson Maxfield, on briefs), for appellant.

(Ann W. Mische, 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.

Carl Lee Ragland, Jr. ("husband") appeals the order of the trial court reducing his spousal support obligation to Janice Eileen Ragland ("wife") by $200 per month. Husband contends that this reduction was so disproportionately small in comparison to wife's increased income as to constitute an abuse of discretion. He also argues that the trial court erred in failing to state its rationale for this decision.

Husband asked the trial court to abate his spousal support payments because of wife's recent acquisition of income at the start of her medical residency. Wife's financial status changed from no income at the time of the initial award, when she was a medical student, to a monthly salary of $2,208 at the time of the petition for modification, when she began her residency. Husband's annual income had increased from approximately $64,000 at the time of the initial award to approximately $67,000 at the time of the petition for modification. In addition, husband remarried and his wife has her own income. The trial court heard evidence and argument from both parties, then ruled from the bench that spousal support would be reduced by $200 per month.

Under Code § 20-109, the court may modify an award of spousal support "as the circumstances may make proper." 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). "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 challenge to the amount of support raises the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. The judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and we may not disturb its ruling if there is credible evidence to support it." Steinberg v. Steinberg, 11 Va. App. 323, 329, 398 S.E.2d 507, 510 (1990).

The trial court did not state its reasons for the contested decision. "When the court does not quantify or elaborate on what weight or consideration it has given 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). Here, the record contains evidence as to each of the factors set forth in Code § 20-107.1. For example, in regard to the first factor of Code § 20-107.1, husband's current income far exceeds that of wife. Husband has a mortgage on his primary residence and on rental property. Wife has a mortgage on her home. Husband has a pension; wife received a cash settlement from husband's pension but does not have her own pension. She testified that she intends to place her cash settlement from the equitable distribution in a retirement fund. Under factor two of Code § 20-107.1, husband has no advanced degrees; wife has a medical degree and is in residency training. Under factor three, wife testified that the standard of living during the marriage was higher than her current standard of living. The marriage lasted twenty years. Under factor six, both parties contributed relatively equally to the well-being of the family. Wife worked throughout most of the marriage. The parties each have recently purchased a home after selling their jointly-owned marital residence. Husband also owns a piece of property at Wintergreen Resort which he rents as often as he can. Under factor seven, the parties divided their marital property fairly equally.

Our examination of these factors leads us to conclude that the trial court's decision to reduce, but not abate, the amount of spousal support from husband to wife does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Dukelow, 2 Va. App. at 27, 341 S.E.2d at 211. The parties are in relatively equal positions except that husband's salary is currently over two and one-half times that of wife's. As we are able to determine from the record that the award is supported by evidence concerning those factors, we find no merit in husband's contention that the trial court erred in failing to state reasons for its decision. Gibson, 5 Va. App. at 435, 364 S.E.2d at 523.

For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's decision.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Ragland v. Ragland

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jun 22, 1993
Record No. 2164-92-4 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 1993)
Case details for

Ragland v. Ragland

Case Details

Full title:CARL LEE RAGLAND, JR. v. JANICE EILEEN RAGLAND

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia

Date published: Jun 22, 1993

Citations

Record No. 2164-92-4 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 1993)