Walter George v. Barbara E. Locklin-George ( 2001 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Annunziata and Senior Judge Coleman
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
WALTER GEORGE
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 2927-00-4 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR.
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
BARBARA E. LOCKLIN-GEORGE
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
Benjamin N.A. Kendrick, Judge
Raymond B. Benzinger (Mary M. Benzinger;
Benzinger & Benzinger, P.C., on briefs), for
appellant.
Paul R. Smollar (Kuder, Smollar & Friedman,
P.C., on brief), for appellee.
Walter George appeals from a domestic relations decree
awarding child support, denying his request for spousal support,
and distributing property between him and his wife, Barbara E.
Locklin-George. He contends the trial judge erred by (1)
adopting verbatim the wife's findings of facts, (2) failing to
impute income to the wife, (3) imputing income to the husband,
(4) using the husband's gross income from self-employment to
determine child support, (5) refusing to grant the husband
spousal support or, in the alternative, a reservation of spousal
support, and (6) fashioning a property award contrary to the
evidence. The wife contends the trial judge abused his
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
discretion by denying her request for attorney's fees, and she
seeks attorney's fees relating to this appeal. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm the decree, with the exception of the
denial of a reservation of right for spousal support.
I.
The parties married in April of 1982. On September 9, 1999,
the wife filed a bill of complaint for divorce. The husband
filed an answer and cross bill also seeking a divorce. Upon the
commissioner in chancery's recommendation, the trial judge
entered a final decree of divorce granting the wife a divorce
based on the parties' separation of more than one year. The
decree reserved jurisdiction to award child support, spousal
support, and a property distribution.
The husband, the wife, and one other witness testified at
the September 14, 2000 evidentiary hearing. The wife presented
thirty-five exhibits; the husband presented two. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge ordered the parties to
submit proposed findings of fact by September 25, 2000. The wife
timely filed her proposed findings. The husband, however,
submitted his findings two days late, on September 27, 2000. The
trial judge adopted verbatim thirty-eight of the wife's forty-
four proposed findings of fact, rejecting six findings related to
attorney's fees. Both parties appeal from the final order, which
incorporates those findings.
- 2 -
II.
A. Findings of Fact
When the trial judge hears the testimony of witnesses ore
tenus, we review the judge's findings of fact in the light most
favorable to the party who prevailed below. Romero v. Colbow, 27
Va. App. 88, 92, 497 S.E.2d 516, 518 (1998). Furthermore, the
trial judge's findings "after an ore tenus hearing should not be
disturbed on appeal unless they are plainly wrong or without
evidence to support them." Schweider v. Schweider, 243 Va. 245,
250, 415 S.E.2d 135, 138 (1992). Upon our review of the record,
we conclude that the evidence supports the findings that the
husband challenges.
The husband contends the trial judge impermissibly found
that he continued to work full-time on the residence the parties
owned. The finding recites, however, that "beginning in August,
1998, . . . [the husband] began devoting some time to his
business and has continued to do so." Moreover, the testimony
conflicts on whether the husband did substantial work on the
house after 1999. The husband's own witness contradicted the
wife's testimony that the husband had finished renovations in
1999. The witness testified that he would not agree that the
house was "essentially" finished in 1999 because husband
continued to work on the house in the year 2000. Given the
conflicting testimony, the trial judge could conclude that
- 3 -
husband was working extensively on finishing the renovations in
1999.
The husband also challenges several of the trial judge's
findings that the husband was employed only part-time in 2000.
At the hearing, the husband failed to offer any evidence
regarding the number of days or hours per week he worked.
Moreover, the trial judge had credible evidence from which he
could infer that husband was not working full-time. For example,
the husband's lack of sales supports the conclusion that he had
not been devoting his full energy into his work. In 1998, the
husband had three or four sales for the year while he was working
almost exclusively on the house. In 2000, he had made only three
to four sales for the first half of the year; he admitted that he
did not have a list of inventory for his equipment; and he did
not know what items he currently possessed. In short, the
husband failed to present sufficient evidence to support his
claim of full-time employment.
The husband contends the judge erred in finding that he has
not incurred separate debt since the separation. He contends
that his testimony proves his separate debt. The record contains
only generalized testimony that the husband "was taking loans"
and "borrow[ing]" money from his family to pay debts. The record
contains no specific amounts of borrowing or debts. According to
well established principles, the trial judge "ascertains a
witness' credibility, determines the weight to be given to [the
witness'] testimony, and has the discretion to accept or reject
any of the witness' testimony." Street v. Street, 25 Va. App.
380, 388, 488 S.E.2d 665, 668 (1997) (en banc). Thus, the trial
- 4 -
judge was entitled to reject the husband's testimony about
general, unquantified borrowings and to conclude that the
evidence failed to prove the husband had separate debts.
The husband contends the trial judge's finding concerning
his income and expense statement was erroneous. The record
establishes that the husband failed to offer as evidence a
statement of his income and expenses. The exhibit in the record
was provided by the wife as the statement the husband prepared in
2000. The factual finding is supported by that exhibit.
The husband contends the trial judge's finding that he had
not worked after returning to Detroit is in conflict with the
finding that the parties worked throughout the marriage. These
statements do not contradict each other. The husband did not
deny that within months of returning to Detroit, he quit his
employment at Ford. The judge's finding does not suggest that
the husband never worked after returning to Detroit, but only
that he was unemployed for a period after his return. Indeed,
the husband testified that he "was unemployed at the time [they]
married."
The husband further contends the trial judge erroneously
found that he "continued to search for work" following the wife's
graduation from law school. The husband argues that in the year
following the wife's graduation from law school, he was gainfully
employed as a wedding photographer and as an investigator for law
firms. The husband testified, however, that the position as a
camera salesman was "at times[,] . . . full-time and there may
have been times when they just didn't schedule full-time." Wife
also testified that husband's work as an investigator was
- 5 -
"somewhat sporadic."
In summary, the husband has not overcome his burden of
proving the trial judge's factual findings were not supported by
credible evidence. Viewed in the light most favorable to the
wife, the prevailing party below, the evidence in the record is
sufficient to support the trial judge's findings of fact.
B. Imputation of Income for Child Support
The husband contends the trial judge improperly ordered him
to pay child support. He argues the trial judge erred by failing
to calculate wife's income at a full-time rate, imputing income
to him without finding he was voluntarily under-employed or
voluntarily unemployed, and using his gross income from
self-employment to determine child support.
1. Income of the Wife
"A parent may not 'purposefully choose to pursue a low
paying career which operates to the detriment of . . . [the
parent's] children.'" Brooks v. Rogers, 18 Va. App. 585, 592,
445 S.E.2d 725, 792 (1994) (citation omitted). In determining
child support, the trial judge is required to "consider all
evidence presented relevant" to that issue. Code § 20-108.1(B).
Decisions concerning imputation of income are governed in part by
the following principles:
A trial court may impute income to the
spouse receiving child or spousal support
under appropriate circumstances. See Code
§ 20-108.1(B)(3) (child support); Srinivasan
v. Srinivasan, 10 Va. App. 728, 734, 396
S.E.2d 675, 679 (1990) (spousal support).
In child support cases, Code § 20-108.1
provides a rebuttable presumption that the
amount of child support indicated by the
guidelines contained in Code § 20-108.2 is
- 6 -
the correct support amount. See Barnhill v.
Brooks, 15 Va. App. 696, 699, 427 S.E.2d
209, 212 (1993). A court must consider the
factors in Code § 20-108.1(B) in deciding
whether to deviate from the presumptive
amount. These factors include "[i]mputed
income to a party who is voluntarily
unemployed or under employed." Code
§ 20-108.1(B)(3). Any child support award
must be based on circumstances existing at
the time the award is made. Payne v. Payne,
5 Va. App. 359, 364, 363 S.E.2d 428, 431
(1987).
Sargent v. Sargent, 20 Va. App. 694, 703, 460 S.E.2d 596, 600
(1995).
"When asked to impute income to a parent, the trial court
must consider the parent's earning capacity, financial resources,
education and training, ability to secure such education and
training, and other factors relevant to the equities of the
parents and children." Niemiec v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 27 Va. App. 446, 451, 499 S.E.2d 576, 579 (1998).
Moreover, we have held that "[t]he burden is on the party seeking
the imputation to prove that the other parent was voluntarily
foregoing more gainful employment, either by producing evidence
of a higher-paying former job or by showing that more lucrative
work was currently available." Id. at 451, 499 S.E.2d at 579.
Deciding not to impute income to either party, the trial
judge found as follows:
[The husband] has chosen to work
part-time. [The husband] has demonstrated a
greater earning ability based upon past
efforts in his business. [The husband] has
also demonstrated a past willingness to quit
working when he no longer likes his job,
regardless of whether he has another job at
the time. In addition, [the husband] has
- 7 -
also demonstrated that he will work
conscientiously and long hours when he wants
to and chooses to do so, such as during 1995
and 1996 on his business and from 1997 to
the present on the house. When he so
applies himself he produces either a
substantial income, as in the case of the
business, or competent workmanship, as in
the case of the renovations. . . . [The
wife] is working part-time in order to take
care of their 2-year-old child, pursuant to
the parties' understanding. Hence, since
both parties have freely chosen to live at a
certain lifestyle based on part-time work,
both prior to and since the separation, and
since the record establishes that the minor
child's basic needs are being met, income
need not be imputed to either or both
parties for purposes of child support or
alimony.
The evidence proved that after their son was born in October
1997, the wife returned to work part-time. She and the husband
agreed when she moved from Detroit to Washington that they wanted
children and that this job would afford her the opportunity to
work part-time. She works twenty-four hours of the thirty-five
hours, which constitute a full-time schedule at her employment.
The parties agreed to share equal physical custody of their son,
who was two years old when the litigation began. The evidence
also supports the judge's finding that the husband works part-
time.
The evidence proved that each party earns in excess of
$60,000 annually. The trial judge found and the evidence proves
that the child's financial needs are met. "We recognize that
decisions concerning . . . child . . . 'support rest within the
sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on
appeal unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence.'"
- 8 -
Sargent, 20 Va. App. at 703, 460 S.E.2d at 600 (citation
omitted). Thus, we have held that in determining child support
"[i]mputation of income is within the trial judge's discretion."
Id. at 704, 460 S.E.2d at 601. We cannot say that the trial
judge's decision in this case was an abuse of discretion.
2. Income of the Husband
The husband contends the trial judge improperly imputed
income to him without finding he was voluntarily unemployed or
voluntarily under-employed. Upon review of the trial judge's
order, we find nothing that suggests the judge imputed income to
the husband. Indeed, the trial judge specifically found that
- 9 -
"income need not be imputed to either . . . party for purposes of
child support or alimony."
Imputation of income occurs where the judge attributes
income to a person based upon a rate of income which is higher
than that which the person's current employment or weekly hours
would yield. See Niemiec, 27 Va. App. at 451, 499 S.E.2d at 579.
The husband's gross business receipts from self-employment for
the first five months of the year were approximately $67,000, and
his business expenses were approximately $5,000. Therefore, his
gross receipts for the first five months of 2000 exceeded $12,000
per month. The trial judge merely inferred that husband would
earn at least $5,000 per month given his current income and his
earning potential for the remainder of the year. That inference
was based, in part, on the husband's earnings for the first half
of the year and his gross income of $225,000 in 1995 and $166,987
in 1996.
In addition, the trial judge did not err in finding that
husband's income would be at least $5,000 per month. Any lack of
specificity in determining husband's exact amount of gross income
is due in large measure to the lack of evidence provided by the
husband. Although the husband testified knowledgeably from bank
deposits about his business receipts, his testimony regarding his
business expenses was undocumented and partly speculative.
Because he failed to provide the necessary information on which
to determine precisely his gross income, he cannot now take
advantage of his failure by challenging the order. It is
sufficient that the trial judge found that the husband's income
was essentially comparable to the wife's. The record contains no
- 10 -
evidence that income was imputed to the husband.
3. Gross Income
The husband contends the trial judge failed to deduct
reasonable business expenses from his gross income. The husband
presented no evidence, other than his own testimony, of his
income. He had not even prepared or filed income tax returns for
1997, 1998, and 1999. Although he testified about various
business expenses, he provided no documentation to support those
items. When testifying about rents, for example, he said "up
until a couple of months ago, I was paying $2,030 a month in
rent." He gave no more definite time frame and provided no
proof.
Although reasonable business expenses must be deducted when
calculating gross income for self-employed persons, see Code
§ 20-108.2(C), nothing in the record suggests the judge failed to
consider evidence of such expenses. Simply put, the husband
failed to prove his expenses. The burden of proving the business
expenses, however, reasonably falls on the person involved in the
business. See id. Moreover, "[w]hen the [trial judge] applies
Code § 20-108.2 . . . it is assumed that the [judge] acted
reasonably and the burden rests upon the challenging party to
show to the contrary." Conway v. Conway, 10 Va. App. 653, 658,
395 S.E.2d 464, 467 (1990). The evidence supports the trial
judge's ruling.
C. Denial of Spousal Support
Husband contends the trial judge erred by failing to award
spousal support or a reservation for spousal support. In
determining whether to award spousal support, the trial judge
- 11 -
must consider the factors outlined in Code § 20-107.1(E). "When
the [trial judge] 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). "[I]n fixing spousal support, a
trial [judge] has broad discretion which should not be interfered
with by an appellate court unless it is clear that some injustice
has been done." Papuchis v. Papuchis, 2 Va. App. 130, 133, 341
S.E.2d 829, 831 (1986).
The trial judge considered and made findings on each of the
factors enumerated in Code § 20-107.1(E). In particular, the
judge found that the parties had not maintained an extravagant
lifestyle during the marriage. The judge also found that the
husband's income expense statement did not indicate the husband
had financial need and that the wife's income expense statement
indicated a negative monthly balance. The trial judge's factual
determinations were supported by credible evidence. Thus, the
- 12 -
trial judge did not abuse his discretion when relying on those
factors in denying spousal support to the husband.
The husband argues that the trial judge erred by failing to
take into account the wife's earning capacity as increased by her
law degree. This argument is without merit. In determining
whether to award spousal support, the judge considered the wife's
monthly income expense statement. The wife's income in the
statement is based on wife's current employment as an attorney.
We have already held that the trial judge did not err by not
imputing income to either party. Moreover, in Srinivasan, we
held that "one who seeks spousal support is obligated to earn as
much as he or she reasonably can to reduce the amount of the
support need." 10 Va. App. at 734, 396 S.E.2d at 679. Here, the
trial judge found that the husband was currently working part-
time and had earned considerably more when he dedicated his full
attention and energy to his business. Because the judge
determined that the husband had not maximized his earnings, it
would be improper to impute income to the wife in order to award
the husband spousal support.
The husband also asserts that the judge erred by failing to
grant a reservation of right to seek future spousal support. We
agree. "[I]t is consistent with the purpose of the law to
include [a reservation of spousal support.]" Bacon v. Bacon, 3
Va. App. 484, 491, 351 S.E.2d 37, 41 (1986). Thus, we have
consistently "held that where there is no bar to the right of
spousal support 'it is reversible error for the trial court, upon
request of either party, to fail to make a reservation in the
decree of the right to receive spousal support in the event of a
- 13 -
change of circumstances,' even though, at the time of the decree,
neither party needed support." Blank v. Blank, 10 Va. App. 1, 4,
389 S.E.2d 723, 724 (1990) (citation omitted).
The trial judge made no finding of fault in granting the
divorce and gives no justification for denying husband's request.
The husband's request in his findings of fact that the issue of
spousal support be reserved in the event of a change in
circumstances was adequate to raise the issue for consideration.
See Vissicchio v. Vissicchio, 27 Va. App. 240, 254, 498 S.E.2d
425, 432 (1998) (holding that an implicit request is sufficient).
Accordingly, we remand to the trial judge for reconsideration the
issue of reservation of right for future support.
D. Property of the Parties
In decreeing concerning property, the judge is required to
consider the factors in Code § 20-107.3(E). On appeal, we are
guided by the following principles:
The statute empowers the [trial judge] to
determine what property is subject to
distribution between the parties, authorizes
him to determine the value of that property
and the interests of each party, and directs
him then to distribute the property
equitably. The [judge] has the benefit of
statutory guidelines, but because rights and
interests in marital property are difficult
to determine and evaluate and competing
equities are difficult to reconcile, the
[judge] is necessarily vested with broad
discretion in the discharge of the duties
the statute imposes upon him. Unless it
appears from the record that the [judge] has
abused his discretion, that he has not
considered or has misapplied one of the
statutory mandates, or that the evidence
fails to support the findings of fact
underlying his resolution of the conflict in
the equities, the [judge's] equitable
- 14 -
distribution award will not be reversed on
appeal.
Smoot v. Smoot, 233 Va. 435, 443, 357 S.E.2d 728, 732 (1987).
The husband contends the trial judge abused his discretion
when he awarded the wife her entire pension. He argues that the
pension was earned during the marriage and that the trial judge
should have awarded him a share of the pension. On review,
however, we must consider the overall fairness of the entire
equitable distribution award. The trial judge's obligation under
the statute is to make an equitable distribution of "the value of
marital property between spouses based upon each spouse's
contribution to the acquisition, preservation, or improvement of
property obtained during the marriage." Lightburn v. Lightburn,
22 Va. App. 612, 619, 472 S.E.2d 281, 284 (1996). "While the
[judge] was required to consider the pension as marital property,
the judge was not required to award the [spouse] any part of it
so long as the overall distribution of the marital property was
equitable." Srinivasan, 10 Va. App. at 733, 396 S.E.2d at 678.
The trial judge specifically found that "[t]here was no
testimony that [the husband] made any effort throughout the
marriage to develop an IRA or other retirement fund." The record
also established and the trial judge found that the husband quit
a job in Detroit "that paid well and had excellent benefits."
The husband also earned substantial sums in his employment during
the marriage. Yet, he never established a retirement fund. We
cannot say the trial judge abused his discretion in ruling that
among the marital assets to be retained by the wife as a part of
the equitable distribution of the marital property was the
- 15 -
pension.
We disagree with the husband's contention that the evidence
did not value the pension. The trial judge accepted the wife's
proof of value and valuation date of the pension. Exhibit 16
presented by the wife valued the pension as of June 1, 1998, two
months prior to the parties' separation. The husband failed to
offer any contrary evidence regarding the valuation of the
pension. It is the responsibility of the parties to present the
trial judge with current evidence from which the judge can make a
valuation of the property. See Stratton v. Stratton, 16 Va. App.
878, 883, 433 S.E.2d 920, 922 (1993). Moreover, the trial judge
generally has discretion in determining the date on which to
value an asset. See Rowe v. Rowe, 33 Va. App. 250, 264-65, 532
S.E.2d 908, 915 (2000). We cannot say the trial judge abused his
discretion in accepting the June 1, 1998 valuation.
The husband also contends the trial judge erred by awarding
the wife $24,000 from her 401(k) plan and then dividing equally
between the parties the balance of the money in the plan. We
disagree. Pursuant to Code § 20-107.3, the trial judge must
"divide fairly the value of the marital assets acquired by the
parties during marriage with due regard for both their monetary
and nonmonetary contributions to the acquisition and maintenance
of the property and to the marriage." O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlin,
20 Va. App. 522, 524, 458 S.E.2d 323, 324 (1995). Code
§ 20-107.3(E) specifically directs the judge to consider the
basis for marital debts.
The wife testified that they incurred substantial credit
card debts after the birth of their son because the husband was
- 16 -
contributing minimal income. Instead of working at his business,
husband opted to expend a substantial amount of his time
renovating a residence they owned. To replace his income, they
had to "tak[e] cash advances out of the credit cards." She
testified that the renovation "took . . . four and a half years"
and that they needed to sell the residence because they "had all
this credit debt that was killing [them]."
When the parties separated they owed $50,922 in credit card
debts. The evidence proved the wife paid portions of that debt
monthly with earnings she acquired after the parties had
separated. When she had paid a total of $24,079, she reimbursed
herself for those payments by borrowing from her 401(k) plan in
May 1999. The trial judge essentially found that the wife
transferred the credit card marital debt into 401(k) marital debt
and reimbursed herself for the $24,000 she had previously
expended from separate funds. The trial judge found that "[t]he
loan from the 401(k) plan accordingly is marital debt."
Although the husband's complaint focuses upon this $24,000
portion of the award, we note that the judge in considering the
basis for the marital debts had additional evidence. The wife
testified that in January 2000 their finances made her take other
steps to reduce their debt payments. The record reflects that on
February 25, 2000, the wife obtained "a refinance loan" to reduce
their mortgage payments and to pay the balance of the credit card
debt, which was still outstanding after the $24,079 payment. The
loan document recites "[t]hat in light of Husband's poor credit
rating and parties' resultant inability to obtain credit jointly,
Wife shall be the sole borrower on the Note, but that liability
- 17 -
for payment shall be equal." The loan document also required the
parties to pay the credit card balances, which were listed on the
document and then totaled $51,419. The refinance loan was
secured by a deed of trust on the residence.
The judge found that "as a direct result of husband
abandoning his business to work full time on the house, the
family . . . [accumulated] . . . marital credit card debt." The
trial judge ordered that upon the sale of the residence, $24,000
of the net proceeds of the sale was to be used to pay the 401(k)
plan loan. The balance of the net proceeds from the sale of the
residence was to be divided equally between the parties. Upon
consideration of the circumstances concerning the debt, the trial
judge awarded the wife $24,000 from the 401(k) plan after payment
of the debt and then ordered that the remaining money in the
401(k) plan be divided equally between the parties. We find no
abuse of discretion in the trial judge's decision to award the
wife a larger portion of the asset represented by the 401(k) plan
after payment of the debt.
The husband contends the trial judge should have treated as
a marital debt $16,000 of his business debts. The husband,
however, offered no evidence to identify the amount, purpose, or
date of the debts. The trial judge awarded the husband the
business and all of its assets. The record does not establish
that the judge erred in requiring the husband to pay the
unspecified $16,000 debt incurred by the business.
The husband further contends that the trial judge's "biased
comments taint[ed] the . . . equitable distribution award" and
"cast doubt upon the trial [judge's] ability to fairly and
- 18 -
equitably resolve the issues." We find no error. As the fact
finder and decision maker, the trial judge is in the unique
position of evaluating the testimony of the witnesses and must
engage in weighing the credibility of the testimony. The judge
is given broad discretion in determining factual issues and has
discretion to accept or reject the evidence offered by the
parties. Street, 25 Va. App. at 388, 488 S.E.2d at 668. We find
no indication that the judge's statements were random attacks on
the husband's character. They were germane to the judge's
evaluation of the facts. The equitable distribution award
contains no indication that the judge was biased against the
husband.
In looking to the entire award, we cannot say the overall
distribution was not equitable. Upon consideration of the
statutory factors, the judge noted that the wife had made
substantially more financial contributions than husband. The
wife also made more nonmonetary contributions to the family. The
judge specifically noted that the husband's contribution to the
marriage consisted of angry comments and emotional outbursts
directed at the wife. The judge also found that the husband was
responsible for the creation and continuance of costly marital
debt. He also found that the husband failed to make any effort
to establish a retirement fund during the marriage, even during
the years that he earned substantial income.
The trial judge awarded the husband one-half the proceeds
from the sale of the family home and a significant portion of the
marital 401(k) plan which the wife earned through her employment.
The trial judge ultimately awarded the husband one-third of the
- 19 -
marital property even though he found that the husband
contributed very little financially or emotionally to the
stability of the family. No statute or case decision requires
the judge to divide equally the marital property. Kaufman v.
Kaufman, 7 Va. App. 488, 497, 375 S.E.2d 374, 379 (1988). The
goal of equitable distribution is to allow the trial judge
flexibility in fashioning an award that is fair considering the
equities of the parties. We cannot say the judge abused his
discretion in making the award.
E. Attorney's Fees
"It is well established that an award of attorney's fees
[which arises out of legal representation] in a divorce
proceeding is 'a matter submitted to the trial court's sound
discretion and is reviewable on appeal only for an abuse of
discretion.'" Alphin v. Alphin, 15 Va. App. 395, 406, 424 S.E.2d
572, 578 (1992) (citation omitted). We do not find the trial
judge abused his discretion by denying the wife her attorney's
fees.
We also do not find that this appeal warrants the award of
attorney's fees. "We have said that 'the key to a proper award
of counsel fees . . . [is] reasonableness under all the
circumstances revealed by the record.'" Westbrook v. Westbrook,
5 Va. App. 446, 458, 364 S.E.2d 523, 530 (1988) (citation
omitted). The award is only proper where the opposing party's
position finds no support in either law or fact. Gottlieb v.
Gottlieb, 19 Va. App. 77, 95, 448 S.E.2d 666, 677 (1994).
- 20 -
III.
For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the decree on the
issues of child support, spousal support, and equitable
distribution. We remand the case to the circuit court for
reconsideration of the husband's request for a reservation of
right for future spousal support.
Affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded
- 21 -