Theresa Louise Bedard v. Michael Scott Bedard ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
THERESA LOUISE BEDARD
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 3199-96-1 PER CURIAM
JULY 1, 1997
MICHAEL SCOTT BEDARD
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE
V. Thomas Forehand, Jr., Judge
(Barry Kantor; Christie & Kantor, on brief),
for appellant.
No brief for appellee.
Theresa Louise Bedard (wife) appeals the decision of the
circuit court denying her spousal support. Wife contends that
the trial court erred in (1) denying her spousal support where
there was no bar to support and she received a divorce from
Michael Scott Bedard (husband) on the grounds of desertion; and
(2) failing to reserve her right to spousal support in the event
of a change in circumstances. Upon reviewing the record and
opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court.
Rule 5A:27.
Spousal Support
The evidence was received by a commissioner in chancery, who
recommended that the parties' respective requests for spousal
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
support be denied. The commissioner noted that the parties were
married for less than five years, that wife had supported herself
prior to the marriage, and that there was no change in her
standard of living prior to, during, or after the marriage. The
parties' monthly net incomes were $1,907 and $1,215,
respectively, for husband and wife. The commissioner noted that
he had considered the statutory factors and husband's desertion
of wife.
The trial court reviewed the commissioner's report and heard
argument on the parties' exceptions. The court found that the
evidence supported the commissioner's recommendation that both
parties be denied spousal support.
In awarding spousal support, the chancellor
must consider the relative needs and
abilities of the parties. He is guided by
the nine factors that are set forth in Code
§ 20-107.1. When the chancellor has given
due consideration to these factors, his
determination will not be disturbed on appeal
except for a clear abuse of discretion.
Collier v. Collier, 2 Va. App. 125, 129, 341 S.E.2d 827, 829
(1986). We cannot say the court's denial of spousal support to
wife was a clear abuse of discretion.
Reservation of Support
Wife contends that the trial court erred by failing to
reserve her right to seek spousal support in the future. She
admits she did not request a reservation of support in her bill
of complaint, but argues that the request was implied in her
request for spousal support. We disagree. Nowhere in wife's
2
initial bill of complaint, in her exceptions to the
commissioner's report, or in her motion to rehear did wife
request a reservation of support. While wife asserts that she
requested a reservation during oral argument on the exceptions to
the commissioner's report, we have no transcript of that hearing.
Wife included in her exceptions to the court's final decree "the
refusal of the Court to grant [wife] an award of spousal support,
or at least a reservation of right to receive an award of spousal
support upon a change of circumstances," but nothing in the text
of the order refers to wife's request for a reservation of
support.
Wife bears the burden to establish her affirmative request
for a reservation of support by record proof. Nothing in the
record before us indicates that wife made a timely request. The
court is not obligated to reserve support sua sponte. See
Thomasson v. Thomasson, 225 Va. 394, 397 n.1, 302 S.E.2d 63, 65
n.1 (1983); D'Auria v. D'Auria, 1 Va. App. 455, 462, 340 S.E.2d
164, 168 (1986). Therefore, wife has not demonstrated that the
trial court committed reversible error in failing to reserve
spousal support.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
3