Jerry Howard Jump v. Patricia Collins Jump ( 1996 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
JERRY HOWARD JUMP
v. Record No. 1043-95-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER
PATRICIA COLLINS JUMP FEBRUARY 6, 1996
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG
AND COUNTY OF JAMES CITY
Samuel T. Powell, III, Judge
Lawrence D. Diehl for appellant.
Willafay McKenna (McKenna & Konstantinou, on
brief), for appellee.
In this appeal from a decree of equitable distribution by
the Circuit Court of the City of Williamsburg and County of James
City (trial court), Jerry Howard Jump (husband) contends that the
trial court erroneously classified certain parcels of real estate
as marital property and failed to give proper credit against the
marital estate for marital debts. Finding no error, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
As the parties are familiar with the facts contained in the
record, we reference only those pertinent to our reason for
affirming the decree.
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
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
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 813, 815 (1987). The trial court's judgment will not be
disturbed unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.
Keyser v. Keyser, 7 Va. App. 405, 409, 374 S.E.2d 698, 701
(1988); Code § 8.01-680. Fashioning the award lies within the
sound discretion of the trial court and will not be set aside in
the absence of the complaining party showing by the record that
an abuse of discretion has occurred.
In the case before us, the property was titled in the joint
names of the parties, with the right of survivorship, and
presumptively should be classified as marital; however, that
presumption may be rebutted by presentation of sufficient
evidence. Huger v. Huger, 16 Va. App. 785, 788, 433 S.E.2d 255,
257 (1993). Here, the trial court's finding discloses that it
rejected husband's contention that the presumption had been
rebutted. Its finding is supported by the record.
Patricia Collins Jump (wife) and husband became liable on a
$100,000 note secured by the subject real estate. The property
was later conveyed by a deed to third parties who, as a part of
the consideration, agreed to discharge the $100,000 debt secured
by that property. The third parties failed to make the required
payments and, in lieu of foreclosure, conveyed the property back
to husband and wife as tenants by the entirety with the right of
survivorship. We cannot say the trial court was plainly wrong,
- 2 -
abused its discretion, or that its decision was without evidence
to support its finding that the subject real estate is marital
property. Moreover, under the facts in this record, nothing
contained in Code § 20-107.3(A)(3)(f) or (g) requires a different
conclusion.
The remaining issues raised by husband involve trial court
discretion. We cannot say that the record discloses abuse of
trial court discretion. Moreover, even if applicable to this
cause, we are not bound by the unpublished opinions cited by
counsel for husband.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed,
reserving to wife the right to apply to the circuit court for
such further fees and costs, if any, as that court may deem
equitable.
Affirmed.
- 3 -