Dyess v. Dyess

• Court: Virginia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: RANDOLPH A. BEALES JUDGE
• Docket Number: 1726-23-4
• Decision Date: 13 January 2026
• Citation: Dyess v. Dyess, 1726-23-4 (Va. App. Jan 13, 2026)
• Parties: ANTHONY TERRELL DYESS v. CATHERINE ELAINE DYESS

1

ANTHONY TERRELL DYESS v. CATHERINE ELAINE DYESS

No. 1726-23-4

Court of Appeals of Virginia

January 13, 2026

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY Victoria A. B. Willis Judge

James J. O'Keeffe (E. Kyle McNew; Christopher Janszky; A. Lewis Lowery; MichieHamlett PLLC, on briefs), for appellant.

Brandy M. Poss (Barnes & Diehl, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Beales, Causey and White Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[*]

RANDOLPH A. BEALES JUDGE

Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court of Stafford County entered a final decree of divorce, granting Catherine Elaine Dyess ("wife") a divorce a vinculo matrimonii from Anthony Terrell "Terry" Dyess ("husband") on the grounds of adultery pursuant to Code § 20-91(A)(1). On appeal, husband assigns error to the circuit court's award of spousal support and equitable distribution of the business he founded during the marriage. Husband also argues that the circuit court erred by denying his motions to reconsider and to reopen the evidence. Wife assigns cross-error to the circuit court's findings that two bank accounts, a catamaran, and a condo were husband's separate property and requests attorney fees on appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

"When reviewing a [circuit] court's decision on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, granting it the benefit of any reasonable inferences." Wolfe v. Shulan Jiang, 83 Va.App. 107, 111 (2025) (alteration in original) (quoting Nielsen v. Nielsen, 73 Va.App. 370, 377 (2021)).

Husband and wife married in 1992, and they had three children, all of whom are now adults. Early in the marriage, husband served in the United States Air Force, and while he was in the Air Force, he completed two master's degrees. Wife had a bachelor's degree in social work and briefly operated a home daycare to supplement the family's income, but otherwise did not work. Wife was the primary caregiver for the couple's children and was responsible for "homemaker duties" such as maintaining the home, purchasing groceries, preparing meals, and taking the children to school.

The family moved several times for husband's military career, and in 2005, husband was assigned to the Pentagon. The couple purchased a home, and the family settled in Fredericksburg.

In 2006, wife discovered that husband had had an extramarital affair. The affair strained the marriage, but the couple did not separate.

In 2010, husband retired from the Air Force to work in consulting. The couple had been married for 18 years when husband retired, two years short of the 20 years required for wife to qualify for lifetime medical benefits as a 20/20/20 spouse.^[1] After leaving the military, husband received military retirement and disability pay in addition to his civilian salary, and the family's standard of living greatly increased. The couple paid off all debt other than the mortgage, purchased cars for their children, paid for their children's college tuitions, went on several family vacations abroad, and made large charitable donations to their church.

In August 2015, husband left his consulting job to start 3Gimbals, LLC, a government contracting company. In October 2016, husband informed wife that 3Gimbals had won a six-month contract in Miami and that he was moving there temporarily. Husband left the marital home on October 12, 2016, but he returned to visit for Thanksgiving and Christmas that year. In late December 2016, husband set up a Tinder account to "start dating again." In early January 2017, he met and began messaging a woman on Tinder. They began a sexual relationship which lasted a year. On February 15, 2017, husband emailed wife, telling her that he wanted a divorce.

In June 2018, wife filed for divorce on grounds of abandonment, adultery, or in the alternative, separation of one year. She requested equitable distribution and spousal support both pendente lite and permanently. Husband filed an answer and cross-complaint seeking a divorce based on a separation of one year.^[2]

In August 2020, husband moved the court "to permit the parties to submit evidence" of alternate valuation dates of his businesses.^[3] He argued that setting the value of his businesses as of the date of the evidentiary hearing would "not accurately or adequately reflect" the personal or financial contributions made by the parties. Although husband indicated that the parties had retained an expert to conduct business valuations reflecting multiple dates, he did not request that the circuit court use any specific valuation date.

Before trial, the parties each filed equitable distribution worksheets listing their assets and proposing their own classifications of those assets. Wife listed the couple's joint USAA checking account x8469 as marital property. She alleged that some of husband's separately titled bank accounts were marital property, including USAA account x1035 and two Navy Federal Credit Union bank accounts (NFCU accounts x5697 and x7845^[4]). She listed two condos in Miami (Unit 1535 and Unit 1216) as marital property. Wife listed two boats-a sailboat and a catamaran-as marital property.^[5] Husband listed the joint USAA checking account as marital property, but he stated that the other separately titled bank accounts, the two Miami condos, and the two boats were his separate property.

On June 23, 2021, the parties appeared before the circuit court for a trial on the grounds for divorce, the couple's date of separation, spousal support, and equitable distribution.^[6]

A. Spousal Support

At trial, husband's attorney stipulated that husband had the ability to pay "any foreseeable, reasonable" award, emphasizing that there was no need to present evidence on husband's ability to pay. Husband stated repeatedly throughout his testimony that he did not dispute his ability to pay.

Both parties testified that husband paid wife $874 per month post-separation. Wife testified that husband paid the mortgage and most of the bills. Wife testified that husband's monthly $874 payment was for expenses "over and above" his payments of the bills. Wife also testified that these payments were often insufficient to cover her expenses and that she received substantial financial assistance from their daughter. Wife testified that her standard of living had declined post-separation and that she had to maintain a "very strict budget" and could no longer afford to travel or to do other things she "used to do." Husband testified that he enjoyed a higher standard of living post-separation, including regular travel, dining out, and buying expensive jewelry for his current girlfriend.

B. Equitable Distribution

1. Valuation of 3Gimbals

The trial court heard evidence from three experts about the value of 3Gimbals. William Dacey, a certified public accountant, was jointly retained by husband and wife. His report was entered into evidence at trial as a joint exhibit. He conducted a valuation of 3Gimbals on three separate dates requested by husband. Dacey determined that 3Gimbals' value was $189,000 on October 12, 2016, $375,000 on February 15, 2017, and $4,981,000 on December 18, 2020.

Robert Raymond, a certified public accountant retained by husband, testified about the classification of the post-separation increase in 3Gimbals' value. Raymond testified that he reviewed Dacey's reports and used them to calculate the company's post-separation increase in value. Using Dacey's valuations, Raymond subtracted the company's value on husband's alleged separation date of October 12, 2016^[7] from its value as of December 2020, resulting in a post-separation increase of $4,792,000. Raymond testified that between 5% and 15% of 3Gimbals' $4,792,000 increase in value should be classified as marital property, with the remainder being classified as husband's separate property. In his report, Raymond explained that he considered husband's post-separation personal effort in calculating what portion should be husband's separate property. Among other factors, Raymond considered certain "[p]ersonal attributes" of husband as part of his personal effort, including husband's "status as a service disabled veteran that qualifies [3Gimbals] for contract bidding preference and his top-secret security clearance." According to Raymond, those attributes "contributed materially to the success of 3Gimbals."

Lawrence Schwartz, a certified public accountant retained by wife, reviewed Dacey's valuation of the company. In his report, Schwartz generally agreed with Dacey's approach, but testified that the company was valued at $6,070,000, in December 2020. Out of this amount, Schwartz calculated the overall goodwill in the company as of December 2020 at $339,000. Schwartz explained that a party's personal goodwill in a company is a separate property interest, which cannot be subject to equitable distribution. On the other hand, institutional goodwill is "attributable to the business itself" and is marital property. Out of the total goodwill, Schwartz opined that $213,600 was husband's personal goodwill, and the remainder of the $339,000 was the company's institutional goodwill.

Husband testified that 3Gimbals had continued to make more money during each year of operation. However, husband testified "We've made more money each year, that's right, and we are very close to dead now." He explained that five of 3Gimbals' contracts would expire or lose funding within the year. Several 3Gimbals employees testified, agreeing that the company faced challenges, but expressing optimism for the company's future. Husband indicated that he believed the appropriate valuation date for 3Gimbals should be October 12, 2016, the day he left for Miami, which he argued was the parties' date of...