Jerry L. Gentry v. Faye J. Campbell ( 1998 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
JERRY L. GENTRY
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2222-97-3 PER CURIAM
APRIL 28, 1998
FAYE J. CAMPBELL
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AUGUSTA COUNTY
Thomas H. Wood, Judge
(Ronald R. Tweel; Elizabeth P. Coughter;
Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen & Tweel, on
brief), for appellant.
(Victor V. Ludwig; Nelson, McPherson,
Summers & Santos, on brief), for appellee.
Jerry L. Gentry appeals the decision of the circuit court
denying his motion to reduce child support paid to Faye J.
Campbell, and granting Campbell's motion to increase child
support. Gentry contends that the trial court erred by failing
to consider the uncontradicted testimony of his expert witness
concerning the financial records of his corporation. 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.
Gentry sought to reduce his child support payment of $610.61
by presenting evidence to support a downward deviation from the
statutory guidelines. See Code §§ 20-108.1 and 20-108.2.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Specifically, Gentry presented evidence relevant to Code
§ 20-108.1(B)(5), "[d]ebts incurred for production of income,"
and Code § 20-108.1(B)(18), "[s]uch other factors, including tax
consequences to each party, as are necessary to consider the
equities for the parents and children." Gentry relied upon the
testimony of a certified public accountant, who testified that
there had been a change in the cash flow of appellant's business,
of which appellant was the majority stockholder.
"The moving party in a petition for modification of support
is required to prove both a material change in circumstances and
that this change warrants a modification of support."
Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 8 Va. App. 601, 605, 383 S.E.2d 28,
30 (1989). The trial court found that there had been a material
change in circumstances and that the change warranted an increase
in support.
Gentry contends that the trial court erred by failing to
accept the testimony of his expert witness, whose testimony
Gentry contends was uncontradicted and unimpeached. We disagree.
The accountant testified that the cash flow of appellant's
business reduced appellant's ability to pay child support.
However, the accountant also testified that, to the best of his
knowledge, appellant's 1996 draft tax return was accurate and
would be filed without modification. That return showed Gentry's
gross income for 1996 to be $51,917. In addition, a personal
financial statement, dated September 12, 1995, and signed by
2
Gentry, showed his net income to be $86,220.
The trial court was entitled to determine what weight to
afford the testimony of Gentry's accountant.
It is well established that the trier of fact
ascertains a witness' credibility, determines
the weight to be given to their testimony,
and has the discretion to accept or reject
any of the witness' testimony. Further, the
fact finder is not required to accept the
testimony of an expert witness merely because
he or she has qualified as an expert. In
determining the weight to be given the
testimony of an expert witness, the fact
finder may consider the basis for the
expert's opinion.
Street v. Street, 25 Va. App. 380, 387, 488 S.E.2d 665, 668-69
(1997) (en banc) (citations omitted). Other evidence supports
the trial court's finding that Gentry's gross income was $52,000.
Because the trial court's finding was supported by credible
evidence, we find no error.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
3