Doretha Leola Thomas v. John Samuel Thomas ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                      COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present:    Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
    DORETHA LEOLA THOMAS
    v.   Record No. 1147-95-1                       MEMORANDUM OPINION *
    PER CURIAM
    JOHN SAMUEL THOMAS                                OCTOBER 3, 1995
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
    Von L. Piersall, Jr., Judge
    (George Minor, Jr., on brief), for appellant.
    (Howard M. Miller, on brief), for appellee.
    Doretha Leola Thomas (wife) appeals from the circuit court's
    finding in a divorce proceeding that the residence titled in her
    name was marital property.    Wife argues that the residence was
    bought with funds given to her by John Samuel Thomas (husband)
    and was her separate property.    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.
    This matter was heard by a commissioner in chancery, whose
    report was affirmed by the trial court.    The decision of the
    trial court will not be set aside on appeal unless it is plainly
    wrong or without evidence to support it.    McLaughlin v.
    McLaughlin, 
    2 Va. App. 463
    , 466-67, 
    346 S.E.2d 535
    , 536 (1986).
    Husband asserts wife is barred by Rule 5A:18 from raising this
    *
    Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    issue on appeal because wife's counsel endorsed the final order
    "Seen, Objected and Excepted to."    However, wife's counsel filed
    an exception to the commissioner's finding that the residence was
    marital property.   The trial court overruled the exception in the
    final decree.   Therefore, the issue was raised before the trial
    court below and preserved for appeal.   Code § 8.01-384.
    Property purchased after the date of the parties' last
    separation is separate property, unless the evidence establishes
    that marital assets were used to purchase it.    Price v. Price, 
    4 Va. App. 224
    , 229, 
    355 S.E.2d 905
    , 908 (1987).   The wife contends
    that husband gave marital funds to her for her exclusive use and,
    thus, altered their classification as marital assets.
    The evidence proved two months before the parties'
    separation husband received funds from a personal injury
    settlement.   Husband initially deposited most of the funds into
    an account in his name.   Several days later, the husband
    transferred funds into a new savings account in wife's name.
    Shortly thereafter, wife transferred those funds to a passbook
    savings account and three certificate accounts as a joint tenant
    with right of survivorship with her mother.
    Wife testified that husband transferred the funds to her
    because he had to make support payments to his children from an
    earlier marriage.   Wife testified that to avoid paying support
    the husband gave her the funds, saying "put it all in your name
    and you do what you want to do with it."   The wife further
    2
    testified as follows:
    After the money was deposited in her name,
    wife used to go to the bank every day to
    withdraw money to give him because if I
    didn't, he would curse me out, wanting to
    jump on me, fight me in the house. If you
    would look on that statement, all them
    withdrawals, he used to make me go get them.
    The evidence was uncontested that husband had a serious drug
    problem.   Wife testified that she paid $20,000 to one of
    husband's drug creditors, and up to $40,000 total to husband's
    creditors.
    After the parties separated on June 28, 1990, wife purchased
    the house for $52,000 with funds from her passbook savings
    account.   The house was deeded to wife as "femme sole, as her
    sole and separate equitable estate."   Although the evidence
    proved that wife and husband discussed buying a house, the
    evidence did not show that husband intended to give wife the
    funds with which to buy a separate house.   Wife testified that
    the parties deposited the funds in the bank because "me and
    [husband] had intention of getting a house together, but he just
    turned sour and he just say he ain't want nothing."
    The evidence, including wife's testimony, supports the
    commissioner's findings, affirmed by the trial judge that husband
    did not give wife the settlement funds as her separate property.
    He gave her the funds to avoid his creditors and to hold and use
    subject to his direction.   Thus, the evidence supports the
    conclusion that the residence, which was purchased after the
    3
    parties' final separation was purchased with marital assets and,
    was marital property subject to the deed of trust.    Code
    § 20-107.3(A)(3)(C) and (H).
    Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
    affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1147951

Filed Date: 10/3/1995

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021