John Hall v. Hallie M. Hall

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons
JOHN HALL, JR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1255-98-3 PER CURIAM
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
HALLIE M. HALL
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge
(John W. Acree; Jolly, Place, Fralin &
Prillaman, on brief), for appellant.
(Jack Vernon Altizer; Bettina C. Altizer;
Altizer & Altizer, on brief), for appellee.
John Hall, Jr. (husband) appeals the equitable distribution
decision of the circuit court. Husband contends that the trial
court erred by awarding Hallie M. Hall (wife) a sixty percent
interest in the marital residence and by failing to credit
husband with his post-separation mortgage payments. 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.
Marital Residence
"Fashioning an equitable distribution award lies within the
sound discretion of the trial judge and that award will not be
set aside unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to
support it." Srinivasan v. Srinivasan, 10 Va. App. 728, 732, 396
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
S.E.2d 675, 678 (1990). "Unless it appears from the record that
the trial judge has not considered or has misapplied one of the
statutory mandates, this Court will not reverse on appeal."
Ellington v. Ellington, 8 Va. App. 48, 56, 378 S.E.2d 626, 630
(1989).
The evidence demonstrated that the parties purchased the
marital residence during the marriage. Wife contributed
approximately $5,000 in separate funds to pay closing costs and
to purchase appliances for the home. Wife presented evidence
that she also paid more than half of the mortgage payments during
the time she resided in the marital home and made additional
contributions towards improving and maintaining the marital home.
Husband presented no evidence, having failed to appear at the
equitable distribution hearing despite receiving and
acknowledging notice in open court.
Virginia's equitable distribution scheme does not provide "a
statutory presumption of equal distribution." Papuchis v.
Papuchis, 2 Va. App. 130, 132, 341 S.E.2d 829, 830 (1986). The
evidence recited in the above paragraph supports the trial
court's decision. Therefore, husband has failed to demonstrate
grounds for reversal.
In his brief, husband contends that the record fails to
demonstrate that the trial court considered the statutory factors
set out in Code § 20-107.3. This argument was never raised
before the trial court and will not be considered for the first
- 2 -
time on appeal. See Rule 5A:18.
Post-Separation Contributions
Husband lived in the former marital residence after the
parties' final separation. Wife's evidence showed that husband
delayed the resolution of the equitable distribution issues, in
part by denying a real estate appraiser access to the home. In
light of the benefit husband received through his sole possession
of the marital home, and his responsibility for delaying a final
resolution of that matter, we find no error in the trial court's
decision to deny appellant additional credit for his
post-separation mortgage payments.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 3 -