Peter W. Pantazes v. Patricia K. Drew Pantazes ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                        COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Benton and Annunziata
    Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
    PETER W. PANTAZES
    MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
    v.   Record No. 0129-00-4                JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR.
    DECEMBER 5, 2000
    PATRICIA K. DREW PANTAZES
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
    M. Langhorne Keith, Judge
    Chanda L. Kinsey (Kinsey, Lynch & Filipour,
    on briefs), for appellant.
    Michael A. Ward (Gannon, Cottrell & Ward,
    P.C., on brief), for appellee.
    Peter W. Pantazes appeals the final decree of divorce in
    which the trial judge awarded spousal support to his wife,
    Patricia K. Drew Pantazes, and distributed the couple's marital
    property.   He presents five issues for review.   We affirm the
    trial judge's ruling on all issues.
    I.
    The evidence proved that the parties were married in 1981,
    that the husband attempted but failed to start a business between
    1981 and 1984, and that he returned to work in 1986.      He then held
    various jobs until 1991 when he began employment with the
    Department of Housing and Urban Development, where he still works.
    * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    The wife was employed at the Small Business Administration before
    the marriage.   During the marriage, she was employed in various
    positions until 1989 when she became disabled.    In 1992, she began
    receiving disability checks.
    The parties purchased a condominium in 1987.    The husband
    testified that after he moved away in March 1994, he continued to
    make payments on the condominium in the amount of $1,000 a month
    until November 1997.   He ceased making payments on the marital
    home after the wife inherited a substantial sum from her mother.
    In the final decree, the trial judge ordered, inter alia,
    that the wife would receive 60% of the jointly owned
    condominium, that she would have the right to purchase the
    husband's share of the condominium, and that the husband should
    immediately transfer 50% of his interest in the Thrift Savings
    Plan to the wife.   The judge also ordered that the wife would
    receive $1,000 a month in spousal support and that the husband
    must pay $15,000 of the wife's attorney's fees.
    II.
    The husband argues that the trial judge erred in allowing the
    wife to amend her cross-bill of complaint on the day of trial to
    include a request for spousal support and in awarding spousal
    support even though the wife never filed an amended pleading.
    The record establishes that the husband filed a bill of
    complaint on November 12, 1997, seeking a divorce a vinculo
    matrimonii.   The wife filed an answer and a cross-bill of
    - 2 -
    complaint.    Although both parties asked for a distribution of the
    marital property in their pleadings, neither requested spousal
    support.   In January 1999, the wife filed a motion for spousal
    support pendente lite and a notice of hearing.   The husband
    testified that he began paying spousal support of $375 per month
    in April 1999 following the pendente lite hearing.   Several months
    later, the wife filed a notice to set a hearing on all the issues
    in the case, including "spousal support."   The parties then agreed
    to a trial date on those issues.
    Prior to the taking of evidence at trial, the husband sought
    sanctions for the wife's failure to provide discovery and moved to
    bar evidence regarding spousal support because the pleadings did
    not request spousal support.    Arguing that pendente lite support
    had been awarded and that the parties had engaged in discovery
    concerning spousal support, the wife orally moved "to amend [the]
    pleadings to make a request for permanent spousal support."    The
    wife indicated she would not oppose a continuance if the husband
    required additional preparation as a result of her motion.
    The trial judge found that the husband "can[not] claim
    surprise that support is an issue when there has been the amount
    of discovery in this case, and . . . unobjected to pendente lite
    [support]."   He granted the oral motion to amend the pleadings and
    also ruled, however, that the wife was precluded from asserting
    that she received from her mother's estate less than $228,348,
    which was the amount represented by husband's counsel.
    - 3 -
    We have previously held that a court may not award support
    without a request in the pleadings.      Boyd v. Boyd, 
    2 Va. App. 16
    ,
    19, 
    340 S.E.2d 578
    , 580 (1986).    "The office of pleadings is to
    give notice to the opposing party of the nature and character of
    the claim, without which the most rudimentary due process
    safeguards would be denied."   
    Id.
        Whether to grant an amendment
    to pleadings, however, is a matter resting within the sound
    discretion of the trial judge.     Kole v. City of Chesapeake, 
    247 Va. 51
    , 57, 
    439 S.E.2d 405
    , 409 (1994).      Furthermore, Rule 1:8
    provides that "[l]eave to amend shall be liberally granted in
    furtherance of the ends of justice."
    The record supports the trial judge's rulings that the
    husband had notice that spousal support would be an issue and
    that the husband was not prejudiced by allowing this amendment.
    The record establishes the parties exchanged information
    regarding income and expenses, and it supports the trial judge's
    ruling that the discovery was sufficient to allow the husband to
    contest the spousal support issue.       Furthermore, the husband
    made no showing at the hearing that he needed additional
    discovery.   When the wife offered to agree to a continuance, the
    husband did not assert that he needed more discovery.
    Accordingly, we hold that the trial judge did not abuse his
    discretion in allowing the wife to amend her pleading on the day
    of trial.
    - 4 -
    Furthermore, the absence of a written amended pleading does
    not void the final decree.   If the office of the pleading is to
    provide notice, then the husband received sufficient notice of
    the spousal support issue through the correspondence with the
    wife's counsel and the notice to set a hearing date for spousal
    support issues.   The holding in Boyd does not affect our ruling
    on this issue because in that case no party ever gave notice of
    a request for spousal support in any form.     Here, the wife gave
    notice of her intent to request support.
    III.
    The husband argues that the trial judge abused his discretion
    in his evidentiary findings and, consequently, in ordering
    equitable distribution of marital property and spousal support in
    accordance with the factors listed in Code §§ 20-107.1 and
    20-107.3.
    When a judge makes findings in a divorce proceeding in which
    the parties present evidence ore tenus, those findings "are
    entitled to the weight of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed
    unless they are plainly wrong or without evidence to support
    them."   Lapidus v. Lapidus, 
    226 Va. App. 575
    , 580, 
    311 S.E.2d 786
    ,
    789 (1984).   This principle applies particularly where the
    credibility of witnesses is crucial to the determination of facts
    and the trial judge makes findings based upon an evaluation of the
    testimony of those witnesses.   Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 
    19 Va. App. 77
    , 83, 
    448 S.E.2d 666
    , 670 (1994).     In the present case, the
    - 5 -
    judge stated that "the credibility of witnesses is key to the
    court's decision," and he found that "[the husband] was – to put
    it mildly – not a credible witness."
    The husband argues nevertheless that the trial judge erred in
    determining his contributions to the marriage, monetary and
    non-monetary, as required by Code §§ 20-107.1(E)(6) and
    20-107.3(E)(1).   The husband emphasizes his employment history, in
    particular.   The trial judge found, however, that "[t]he evidence
    was very clear that [the husband], in essence, was unemployed from
    the time of the marriage until 1991. . . .   [I]t wasn't until 1991
    that he went to work for the federal government at a significant
    wage."   The husband claims that such conclusions ignore the fact
    that he returned to work in 1986 and that he supported his wife
    after her disability.
    Because the husband acknowledges that he was essentially
    unemployed for the first five years of the marriage and because of
    the limited salary of his employment before working for the
    federal agency, the judge found that the husband's pre-1991
    employment was "marginal."   Furthermore, the judge relied on other
    evidence of contributions, such as the wife's steady employment
    history until the time of her disability and her receipt of
    disability payments after that time.   For these reasons, we cannot
    say that the judge erred in finding that the contributions factors
    favored the wife.
    - 6 -
    In determining the "standard of living established during the
    marriage," see Code § 20-107.1(E)(2), the trial judge found that
    the parties had maintained a high standard of living and "ran in
    . . . high political circles."    The husband argues that the wife's
    political appointment preceded the marriage and that the only
    evidence on the issue indicated that their lifestyle was "modest."
    This characterization, however, came from the husband's testimony,
    which the trial judge found not to be credible.    Furthermore,
    other testimony supports the trial judge's finding that the
    standard of living was "above normal" and provides other examples
    of the couple's social and volunteer activities.   Therefore, the
    judge's rulings were not plainly wrong or without evidence to
    support them.
    The husband also argues that the trial judge impermissibly
    ignored evidence that the wife had inherited income of $228,348
    invested at a 10.4% interest rate and, therefore, the judge erred
    when he determined the obligations, needs and financial resources
    of the parties and their property interests, in accordance with
    Code § 20-107.1.   The husband claims that the judge's actions
    constitute impermissible refusal to consider all the factors.
    Before trial, the judge sanctioned the wife for refusing to
    respond to discovery requests and ruled that the wife could not
    present evidence that she had received less than $228,348 from her
    mother's estate.   Precluding the wife from presenting evidence on
    this issue did not bind the judge to find the husband's evidence
    - 7 -
    credible.   For instance, the husband's evidence that the wife had
    $228,348 included bank statements that were several years old; one
    was from January 1984.   Thus, there was not "sufficient evidence"
    for the judge "to classify or evaluate marital or separate
    property," and the trial judge was free to ignore this evidence.
    Bowers v. Bowers, 
    4 Va. App. 610
    , 618, 
    359 S.E.2d 546
    , 551 (1987).
    The husband also argues that the judge should not have found
    him to be less credible than the wife.   On brief and at oral
    argument the husband speculated that the trial judge was affected
    more by the impeachment of the husband than of the wife because
    his impeachment occurred on the witness stand and hers occurred in
    documents submitted to the court.   We will not presume the trial
    judge decided the issues in this case in this manner.   The trial
    judge has the discretion to believe or disbelieve evidence as long
    as his findings have a credible basis.
    The husband makes similar arguments regarding the tax
    consequences of the property distribution, the age of the parties,
    the date of acquisition of the condominium, the wife's income and
    expenses, and the debts of the parties at the time of separation.
    We find that the trial judge corrected any significant errors that
    he made prior to issuing the final decree, that any remaining
    errors were harmless, and that the trial judge correctly made
    rulings based upon the credibility of the parties.   See McDavid v.
    McDavid, 
    19 Va. App. 406
    , 413, 
    451 S.E.2d 713
    , 718 (1994).
    - 8 -
    IV.
    The husband next contends that the trial judge erred in
    ignoring the parties' stipulation that the wife shall receive a
    50% share of his Thrift Savings Plan, "if as and when received."
    Instead, the trial judge ordered an immediate transfer of this
    asset.   The husband argues that this ruling violates Code
    § 20-109.1 (providing for the affirmation of separation agreements
    between parties) and Hart v. Hart, 
    27 Va. App. 46
    , 62, 
    497 S.E.2d 496
    , 503-04 (1998) (holding that a trial judge may not enter a
    decree that is inconsistent with a valid agreement of the
    parties).   The husband's argument is not persuasive.
    During the husband's testimony acknowledging he had a savings
    plan, the following occurred:
    Q. All right, sir. Do you also participate
    in the Thrift Savings Plan?
    A.   Yes, sir.
    Q. Have you participated in the Thrift
    Savings Plan since the beginning of your
    employment in 1991?
    A.   Yes, sir.
    [Husband's Counsel]: Your Honor, just to
    let the court know, my client will not
    object to [the wife] receiving 50 percent of
    the marital share of those plans.
    THE COURT:   All right.
    [Wife's Counsel]:   If as of and when he
    receives it?
    [Husband's Counsel]:     If as of and when he
    receives it.
    - 9 -
    Although the parties said they would split evenly this
    interest "if as . . . and when . . . receive[d]," no evidence
    proved this asset was anything other than one immediately
    available to the husband.     The trial judge stated that the intent
    of this agreement was "to do a normal marital share split."    Thus,
    he ruled that the interest in the plan "is going to be transferred
    right now, that is what you do with thrift savings plans. . . .
    [T]here is no if, as, and when as to a thrift savings plan."
    The judge did not violate either the law or the stipulation
    of the parties.   The trial judge simply ruled concerning when the
    moneys were available to the husband.     The judge found that the
    intent of the parties was to transfer the interest when it was
    available.    No evidence proved the funds were not immediately
    available to the husband without discount.    Thus, the trial judge
    ruled in his discretion that the husband should receive and
    transfer the interest immediately.
    V.
    The husband contends the trial judge should have ordered
    the wife to re-finance the condominium mortgage to diminish her
    need for spousal support.     He argues that the judge's refusal to
    do so, coupled with the decision to allow the wife to purchase
    the husband's share of the condominium, was an abuse of
    discretion.    We disagree.
    In Gamble v. Gamble, 
    14 Va. App. 558
    , 
    421 S.E.2d 635
    (1992), we found an abuse of discretion when the trial judge
    - 10 -
    linked the distribution of property under Code § 20-107.3
    directly to the award of spousal support under Code § 20-107.1.
    We ruled that the trial judge erred when he "fashioned" a
    spousal support award "primarily for [the] purpose" of providing
    "the financial means by which [the wife] could satisfy the
    monthly mortgage obligations on the marital property she sought
    and received under the provisions of Code § 20-107.3."    14 Va.
    App. at 576, 
    421 S.E.2d at 646
    .    We noted that maintaining an
    appropriate separation "prevents a 'double dip' by a spouse who
    seeks and receives encumbered property under Code § 20-107.3 and
    also seeks and receives spousal support under Code § 20-107.1."
    14 Va. App. at 577, 
    421 S.E.2d at 646-47
    .
    In this case, although the trial judge ordered the spousal
    support award at the same hearing at which he ordered the
    parties to sell the home, he did not link the two.    Responding
    to the wife's request, he later amended that ruling to allow the
    wife to retain the home and purchase the husband's share.    Thus,
    the order of spousal support preceded the wife's purchase of the
    home.    These facts distinguish this case from Gamble.   We can
    determine no impermissible connection between the spousal
    support award in this case and the mortgage payments.     Although
    a reduction in the wife's mortgage payment might bear upon the
    wife's expenses, and, thus, be a factor in her need for spousal
    support, we cannot say the trial judge abused his discretion in
    refusing to order the refinancing of the existing mortgage.
    - 11 -
    VI.
    The husband contends that the trial judge abused his
    discretion in ordering him to pay the wife's attorney's fees.
    The husband argues that the wife's recalcitrance in responding
    to discovery requests and in answering questions at her
    deposition added significantly to the legal bills she
    accumulated.     He also argues that her financial resources exceed
    his.
    An award of attorney's fees in a divorce case is a matter
    within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and we will not
    disturb such a decision absent an abuse of discretion.     Broom v.
    Broom, 
    15 Va. App. 497
    , 502, 
    425 S.E.2d 90
    , 93 (1992).     If a
    "'wife needs and is entitled to maintenance and support and the
    husband has the financial ability to meet those needs,'" then
    the trial judge has the authority to award attorney's fees to
    the wife.     Poliquin v. Poliquin, 
    12 Va. App. 676
    , 681, 
    406 S.E.2d 401
    , 405 (1991) (quoting Thomas v. Thomas, 
    217 Va. 502
    ,
    505, 
    229 S.E.2d 887
    , 890 (1976)).
    The trial judge found that the wife's income was
    substantially less than the husband's because of her disability.
    In arguing that the wife's resources surpass his own and,
    therefore, she should pay her own attorney's fees, the husband
    is merely asking us to revisit the substantive issues in the
    case.     The trial judge's findings were based on the evidence in
    - 12 -
    the case.   Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the award of
    attorney's fees to the wife.
    For these reasons, we affirm the judgment.
    Affirmed.
    - 13 -