From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Summers v. Summers

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jun 29, 1993
Record No. 2231-92-4 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 29, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 2231-92-4

June 29, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CULPEPER COUNTY LLOYD C. SULLENBERGER, JUDGE.

(Jere M. H. Willis, III; Shackelford, Honenberger, Thomas Willis, on brief), for appellant.

No 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. Rule 5A:27.

Jerry R. Summers ("father") appeals from an order of the trial court determining the amount of child support he must pay each month for his daughter, Stacey. The trial court heard evidence from the parties, received documentary evidence, and heard argument from counsel. Father raises the following arguments:

I. The trial court erred in failing to deduct father's monthly medical insurance expenses from the basic child support amount; and

II. The trial court erred in computing the amount father spends for support of another daughter.

Code § 20-107.2 vests discretion in the trial court to award child support. Such awards will not be reversed on appeal unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence. Young v. Young, 3 Va. App. 80, 81, 348 S.E.2d 46, 47 (1986). Guidelines for determining the amount of child support are set forth in Code § 20-108.2. "When the chancellor applies Code § 20-108.2 . . . it is assumed that the court acted reasonably and the burden rests upon the challenging party to show to the contrary." Conway v. Conway, 10 Va. App. 653, 658, 395 S.E.2d 464, 467 (1990).

I.

Code § 20-108.2(E) provides, in pertinent part, "[a]ny costs for health care coverage . . ., when actually being paid by a parent, to the extent such costs are directly allocable to the child . . . and which are the extra costs of covering the child or children beyond whatever coverage the parent providing the coverage would otherwise have, shall be added to the basic child support obligation." The court found that both father and Connie O. Summers, Stacey's mother, maintain health insurance policies which benefit Stacey and, at this time, neither can obtain health insurance without benefiting Stacey. Therefore, the trial court properly declined credit for health insurance to either party.

II.

Father also challenges the amount of credit given to him under Code § 20-108.1(B)(1) for funds spent to raise Tinsley, his daughter from a prior marriage. Father has custody of Tinsley and receives $200 per month in child support from Tinsley's mother. The trial court, after considering father's monthly income statement, stated:

The Court, having considered the documentary evidence provided by [father], notes that no evidence was adduced as to the percentage of such expenses attributable to [Tinsley's] support, and accordingly does not take into account [father's] automobile expenses, his medical expenses, or his rental expenses. The court does, however, take into account all expenses identified as school supplies, allowance, and day care. And further, despite the lack of any evidence to support any allocation of percentage of other expenses, considers [25%] of the food and [25%] of the clothing, identified in the [monthly expense sheet] as being necessary expenses for the support of [Tinsley] . . . .

Code § 20-108.1(B) provides for the trial court to consider relevant evidence presented by the parties as to certain factors in deciding whether to deviate from the presumptively correct amount determined from the guidelines of Code § 20-108.2. "If the applicability of the factors is supported by the evidence," the trial court may deviate from the guideline amount by making written findings justifying the deviation.Richardson v. Richardson, 12 Va. App. 18, 21, 401 S.E.2d 894, 896 (1991). Father failed to carry his burden of presenting evidence that would entitle him to any further reduction than that given by the trial court. The trial court's ruling was appropriate under the relevant statutes and was not an abuse of his discretion. Moreover, the language of Code § 20-108.1(B)(1), referring to "[a]ctual monetary support for other children," refutes father's argument that the guideline amount should be computed for Tinsley and considered by the court to be the cost of her support. Code § 20-108.1(B)(1). See Farley v. Liskey, 12 Va. App. 1, 3-4, 401 S.E.2d 897, 898-99 (1991).

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

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Summers v. Summers

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jun 29, 1993
Record No. 2231-92-4 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 29, 1993)
Case details for

Summers v. Summers

Case Details

Full title:JERRY R. SUMMERS v. CONNIE O. SUMMERS

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia

Date published: Jun 29, 1993

Citations

Record No. 2231-92-4 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 29, 1993)

Citing Cases

Greiner v. Greiner

If an equal division of marital property would be inequitable, the court shall not divide the marital…