Marshall W. Woodward, II v. Loretta Mae Woodward ( 1998 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Bumgardner
MARSHALL WILBER WOODWARD, II
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2525-97-2 PER CURIAM
APRIL 28, 1998
LORETTA MAE WOODWARD
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY
William H. Ledbetter, Jr., Judge
(George C. Rawlings, Jr., on brief), for
appellant.
(R. Scott Pugh, on brief), for appellee.
Marshall Wilber Woodward, II, (husband) appeals the decision
of the circuit court awarding $500 in monthly spousal support to
Loretta Mae Woodward (wife). Husband contends that the trial
court erred in awarding wife spousal support because wife was
guilty of misconduct through post-separation cohabitation with
another man. 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.
"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.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
21, 27, 341 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1986).
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).
The parties submitted evidence by way of deposition. The
trial court found that wife was disabled, and received $1,086 in
monthly disability retirement income. Husband earned $35,000 a
year. Both parties worked throughout the marriage. Wife
testified that she needed assistance to pay rent and utilities on
an apartment for herself and the parties' minor child.
Husband sought and was granted a divorce on the ground of a
one-year separation. He did not allege adultery as a ground for
divorce. Wife failed to present sufficient evidence to
corroborate her alleged grounds of adultery and cruelty. The
trial court denied husband's motion to reconsider the award of
spousal support on the basis of wife's misconduct in living with
another man and in using drugs.
On appeal, husband has failed to provide citations to
evidence in the record supporting his allegations that wife was
guilty of misconduct. See Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53,
56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Even if we assumed that husband
presented sufficient evidence to support his allegations, that
2
evidence would not preclude an award of spousal support to wife
under Code § 20-107.1, if other evidence established that support
was warranted. See generally Hollowell v. Hollowell, 6 Va. App.
417, 419, 369 S.E.2d 451, 452 (1988) ("Had the legislature
intended misconduct or illicit cohabitation to terminate spousal
support, it could have so provided as it did with death and
remarriage."). The trial court noted that it considered the
statutory factors and the evidence before awarding wife $500 in
monthly spousal support. Credible evidence established that
wife's income was less than half of husband's income and that
wife continued to need financial assistance to pay for housing
and other expenses. Therefore, husband has failed to establish
that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding spousal
support to wife.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
3