Bobby R. Thacker v. Sandra M. Thacker ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
BOBBY R. THACKER
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0371-97-1 PER CURIAM
JULY 29, 1997
SANDRA M. THACKER
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF YORK COUNTY
N. Prentis Smiley, Jr., Judge
(Timothy S. Fisher; Overman, Cowardin &
Martin, on brief), for appellant.
(Kenneth B. Murov; Jones, Blechman, Woltz &
Kelly, on brief), for appellee.
Bobby R. Thacker (husband) appeals the decision of the
circuit court judge awarding spousal support to Sandra M. Thacker
(wife) and deciding other issues. Husband contends that the
trial judge erred by (1) denying his claim for reimbursement for
marital debts he paid, (2) failing to consider the provisions of
Code § 20-107.1 when setting spousal support and specifically
failing to impute income to wife, and (3) improperly considering
future factors when awarding spousal 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.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Marital Debts
The trial judge ruled that husband failed to prove that he
used separate property to pay $35,290 in marital debts.
Specifically, the judge noted that "[h]usband testified that his
expenditures were from joint marital assets to cover joint
marital debt, wherein the parties mutually benefitted from their
use." Thus, the record establishes that the payments were made
from marital assets. In addition, some debts were gifts
voluntarily made for the parties' children. The trial judge
"made extensive inquiry" into husband's claim that he used
separate funds to pay marital debts and his decision is supported
by the record.
Spousal Support
"The determination whether a spouse is entitled to support,
and if so how much, is a matter within the discretion of the
court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that
some injustice has been done." Dukelow v. Dukelow, 2 Va. App.
21, 27, 341 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1986). Husband contends that the
trial judge erred by failing to consider the statutory factors
set out in Code § 20-107.1, and specifically failing to impute
any income to wife. The trial judge considered the evidence
relative to the statutory factors and ruled that wife was
entitled to support. These findings are supported by evidence.
"A court may under appropriate circumstances impute income
to a party seeking spousal support." Srinivasan v. Srinivasan,
2
10 Va. App. 728, 734, 396 S.E.2d 675, 679 (1990). However, the
trial judge may allow a party a reasonable amount of time within
which to seek and obtain employment before imputing income. See
id. at 735, 396 S.E.2d at 679-80. The record demonstrates that
wife left a job that she held for twenty years because her
supervisor abused her and reduced her salary by $10,000. Wife's
testimony concerning the working conditions was corroborated by a
fellow worker. Wife testified that she discussed the situation
with husband before quitting her job. Wife obtained a new job at
a reduced salary. Wife testified that her current salary was
$1,125 and her monthly expenses totaled $1,956.
Although the trial judge found that wife was capable of
earning $25,000 to $30,000 per year, the trial judge found that
presently wife earned substantially less. The trial judge also
found that the amount of spousal support was subject to change if
the wife did not make an effort to increase her income. The
record establishes that the trial judge considered the evidence
and the parties' relative earnings and financial needs in setting
support. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's
refusal to impute additional income to wife at this time.
Finally, husband also contends that the trial judge
erroneously relied upon future circumstances in setting spousal
support. We disagree. The trial judge's recognition that wife's
current employment was below the maximum she was capable of
earning, based upon her past salary level, did not preclude an
3
award of support based upon her current circumstances under the
statutory factors set out in Code § 20-107.1. Similarly, the
trial judge's recognition that, given additional time to conduct
a search, wife might find a job with a comparable salary, did not
make its current award of support less permanent. We find no
indication that the trial judge erroneously considered events in
the future as the basis for the current award of spousal support.
Accordingly, the decision is summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.
4