Margaret Jane Cryor Gaynor v. Frederick S. Hird, Jr

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Annunziata
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
MARGARET JANE CRYOR GAYNOR
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record Nos. 1224-97-4, PER CURIAM
1841-97-4 and 1907-97-4 JUNE 9, 1998
FREDERICK SYLVESTER HIRD, JR.
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
Paul F. Sheridan, Judge
Edward V. O'Connor, Jr. (Byrd, Mische, Bevis,
Bowen, Joseph & O'Connor, P.C., on briefs),
for appellant.
William B. Cummings for appellee.
The parties are familiar with the voluminous records
relevant to this protracted litigation, together with the
attendant facts and procedural history. Accordingly, this
opinion omits needless archival references in resolving those
issues subject of the most recent spate of appeals.
Our review is "guided by the principle that decisions
concerning equitable distribution rest within the sound
discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal
unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence." McDavid v.
McDavid, 19 Va. App. 406, 407-08, 451 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1994)
(citing Srinivasan v. Srinivasan, 10 Va. App. 728, 732, 396
S.E.2d 675, 678 (1990)).
Unless it appears from the record that the
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
chancellor 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 chancellor's equitable
distribution award will not be reversed on
appeal.
McClanahan v. McClanahan, 19 Va. App. 399, 401, 451 S.E.2d 691,
692 (1994) (citing Smoot v. Smoot, 233 Va. 435, 443, 357 S.E.2d
728, 732 (1987)).
I. Equitable Distribution
In fashioning the decree on appeal, our review of the
instant and interrelated records discloses that the chancellor
properly adjudicated the interests of the parties, including the
bank accounts and marital debts in issue, consistent with statute
and prior decisions of our Court in this cause. Thus, finding no
error, we affirm the award.
II. Rental Issues
In record 1224-97-4, appellant assigns ten errors to the
trial court's Order on Rental Claim on Remand. She complains
that imputed rental income attributed to her ownership interests
in the former marital residence was separate property, not
properly subject to consideration in the monetary award.
However, "legal title . . . has little or no bearing upon how
[marital wealth] . . . is to be equitably distributed by a
monetary award under Code § 20-107.3." Lightburn v. Lightburn,
22 Va. App. 612, 616, 472 S.E.2d 281, 283 (1996). Here, the
trial court valued appellant's rental claim and properly included
- 2 -
it in formulating a monetary award pursuant to the provisions of
Code § 20-107.3. The court's determination of rental value is
supported by credible evidence and its treatment and analysis in
equitable distribution, carefully detailed in the disputed order,
reflects no abuse of discretion. We, therefore, affirm the
order.
III. Suspension Bond
Wife appeals the trial court's decision to allow appellee to
pursue debtor's interrogatories and continue liens against the
appellant's property, despite a Suspension Bond. Finding that
the trial court's resolution of this issue evinces no abuse of
discretion and is supported by the record, we affirm the
challenged order.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.
Affirmed.
- 3 -