Harold W. Poppe v. Dorothy D. Poppe ( 1995 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
HAROLD W. POPPE
v. Record No. 0284-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
DOROTHY D. POPPE AUGUST 29, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Thomas A. Fortkort, Judge
(Robert P. Dwoskin, on brief), for appellant.
(Mary S. Meade, on brief), for appellee.
Harold W. Poppe (husband) appeals the equitable distribution
decision of the circuit court awarding certain property to
Dorothy D. Poppe (wife). Husband raises a single issue on
appeal: whether husband's incarceration should have been
sufficient grounds to bar the trial court from entering a final
order of equitable distribution. 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
1
trial court. Rule 5A:27.
"In reviewing an equitable distribution award on appeal, we
recognize that the trial court's job is a difficult one.
Accordingly, we rely heavily on the discretion of the trial judge
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
1
As husband was represented by counsel, no issues arise
under Code § 8.01-9. See Dunn v. Terry, 216 Va. 234, 239-40, 217
S.E.2d 849, 854 (1975).
in weighing the many considerations and circumstances that are
presented in each case." Artis v. Artis, 4 Va. App. 132, 137,
354 S.E.2d 812, 815 (1987).
The Final Decree of Divorce and Equitable Distribution,
entered August 24, 1994, demonstrates that husband was granted an
extension until December 1, 1994 to present evidence relating to
"any property items not previously ruled upon." Although husband
was incarcerated, the record demonstrates that husband was
present at the July 20, 1994 equitable distribution hearing and
was represented by counsel. The record contains a letter husband
filed on August 18, 1994, in which husband suggested that
additional savings accounts existed. However, no additional
evidence was presented and the Supplemental Decree of Equitable
Distribution was entered on December 19, 1994.
Husband's counsel objected to entry of the final order "due
to [husband's] continuing incarceration until Feb 1995." Husband
argues, in essence, that the trial court was obliged to continue
to grant continuances until husband was no longer incarcerated so
that husband could personally examine his assets. "The grant or
denial of a continuance lies within the sound discretion of the
trial judge." Snurkowski v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 532, 535,
348 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1986). Furthermore, "[a]fter a court has
concluded an evidentiary hearing 'during which each party had
ample opportunity to present evidence, it [is] within the court's
discretion to refuse to take further evidence on this subject.'"
2
Holmes v. Holmes, 7 Va. App. 472, 480, 375 S.E.2d 387, 392
(1988) (citation omitted).
Husband has failed to demonstrate that the trial court
abused its discretion in entering a final order. The court
allowed husband ample opportunities to present evidence.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
3