Murray L. Steinberg v. Katherine T. Steinberg, etc ( 1996 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
MURRAY L. STEINBERG
v. Record No. 1064-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
KATHERINE T. STEINBERG, n/k/a JANUARY 30, 1996
KATHERINE T. SHUMAKER
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY
Lee A. Harris, Jr., Judge
(Murray L. Steinberg, pro se, on briefs).
(Murray J. Janus; Deanna D. Cook; Bremner & Janus, on
brief), for appellee.
Murray L. Steinberg (father) appeals the decision of the
circuit court denying his motion to reduce child support paid to
Katherine T. Shumaker (mother). Father contends that the trial
court erred by finding there was no material change in
circumstances warranting a reduction in child support. 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.
Father argues that he is entitled to use the shared custody
guidelines set out in Code § 20-108.2(G)(3) because he has
visitation with his daughter for more than 110 days. However,
the trial court found that father does not have the child for
more than 110 days. Under Code § 20-108.2(G)(3)(c), a "day" is
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
defined as "any continuous twenty-four hour period," and does not
include periods when the child "'is attending school, is placed
in non-parent day care, or placed with a third party.'" Ewing v.
Ewing, 21 Va. App. 34, 37, 461 S.E.2d 417, 418 (1995) (en banc).
The trial court accepted father's testimony that his gross
income was $788 per month. However, noting that father "is a
healthy, 53 year old male with a college education, who has owned
his own business for approximately twenty years," the trial court
found that father continues to be "extremely underemployed" and
that father "is voluntarily failing to seek employment for
compensation." The trial court found that there had been no
material change in circumstances since the previous order and
continued to impute $30,000 in income to father.
In his most recent deposition, father claimed that he works
seventy to eighty hours a week for Family Resolution Council, but
stated that while he hoped to be paid something one day, "so far
I haven't been able to take anything out of the funds of Family
Resolution Counsel." Father admitted that Family Resolution
Council pays a portion of his mortgage and utilities, as does
K & M, for which he claimed to work three hours a week. Father
denied ever earning $30,000, although the 1990 federal income tax
return filed by the parties listed their joint adjusted gross
income as $83,318, of which $25,348 was mother's salary.
Credible evidence supports the trial court's decision that
no material change in circumstances warranting a reduction in
2
child support had occurred. Accordingly, the decision of the
circuit court is summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.
3