Ezzat M. Zein v. Nora H. Burgan (Zein) ( 2001 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Annunziata, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman
EZZAT M. ZEIN
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0352-01-4 PER CURIAM
OCTOBER 23, 2001
NORA H. BURGAN (ZEIN)
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Stanley P. Klein, Judge
(Ezzat M. Zein, pro se, on brief).
(Nora H. Burgan, pro se, on brief).
Ezzat M. Zein (husband) appeals the decision of the circuit
court denying in part and granting in part his motion to reduce
child support payments to his former wife, Nora H. Burgan (wife).
On appeal, husband presents five questions, but only three
distinct issues. He contends the trial court erred in (1)
imputing his income as $66,000 per year, (2) determining that
wife's income was $40,000 per year, and (3) crediting him with
support overpayment only beginning September 1, 2000. 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. See Rule 5A:27.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party
prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250,
391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990).
Background
The parties married in 1979, separated in December 1993,
and were granted a final decree of divorce on June 21, 1995.
Three children were born during the marriage. On May 22, 1998,
the circuit court entered an order awarding wife $1,012 per
month in support. In his Petition to Change Child Support,
husband asked the trial court to impute income to wife
retroactive to January 1998, find his income to be $30,000
annually, reduce his child support obligation because his oldest
child reached the age of eighteen, and order wife to reimburse
husband for alleged overpayment of support. The trial court
adjusted husband's monthly obligation to $929.60 for the support
and maintenance of his two minor children.
Analysis
The trial court determined that husband's annual income is
currently $66,000. In a deposition, Hamoud Aljunaibi testified
that he negotiated with husband to purchase one of husband's
restaurants. Husband presented Aljunaibi with stock
certificates indicating that he owned one hundred percent of the
business. He also told Aljunaibi that he received $36,000
"under the table" each year in addition to his $30,000 reported
- 2 -
income. After Aljunaibi took over the business he found its
income to be approximately $5,000 higher than that reported by
husband. Aljunaibi's testimony was corroborated by documentary
evidence. The trial court found that appellant purposely
concealed two bank accounts and failed to cooperate with
discovery. The trial court did not err in imputing income to
appellant for purposes of Code § 20-108.2 as $66,000.
The trial court found wife's income was $40,000. From one
business, Samadi Sweets Café, she earned $35,000, and from
another business, Events Unlimited, she earned $8,000 in 1998
and $2,000 in 1999. The court averaged the two figures and set
the amount of additional income as $5,000. The trial court did
not err in calculating wife's annual income.
"No support order may be retroactively modified, but may be
modified with respect to any period during which there is a
pending petition for modification, but only from the date that
notice of such petition has been given to the responding party."
Code § 20-108. Husband acknowledges that he filed his petition
on September 1, 2000. After adjusting husband's support
obligation, the court credited him with an overpayment in the
amount of $328 for payments made during the pendency of the
action. Husband was not entitled to anything more. Accordingly,
we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule
5A:27.
Affirmed.
- 3 -