Floyd v. Floyd
| Decision Date | 11 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 0208-85,0208-85 |
| Citation | 1 Va.App. 42,333 S.E.2d 364 |
| Parties | Horance H. FLOYD v. Nancy H. FLOYD. Record |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
William M. McClenny, Jr., Amherst, for appellant.
Frank West Morrison, Lynchburg (Seth E. Twery, Bell, Morrison & Spies, Lynchburg, on brief), for appellee.
Present: KOONTZ, C.J., and BENTON and HODGES, JJ.
The issue in this appeal is whether a motion for reduction or elimination of spousal support was properly denied.
Horance and Nancy Floyd were married on February 12, 1955. In 1981, the parties separated, and on June 7, 1982, a pendente lite order was entered which granted support of $400.00 a month to Nancy Floyd. This award was continued in effect by the final divorce decree entered January 3, 1983, and again on April 20, 1983, when a property settlement agreement was incorporated into the final decree. Subsequently, on September 10, 1984, Mr. Floyd filed a motion praying for a reduction or elimination of the spousal support payments based on a change in circumstances. On October 10, 1984, the court heard the evidence ore tenus, and on November 27, 1984, ruled that Mr. Floyd had failed to show a substantial change in circumstances which would justify a modification of the spousal support orders.
On appeal, Mr. Floyd contends that there was sufficient evidence to show a change of circumstances in his ability to continue payment of spousal support and in Nancy Floyd's ability to support herself without further assistance from him. He specifically alleges that the trial court erred in: (1) finding no change of circumstances to merit a decrease or cessation of spousal support; (2) ruling that Code § 20-107.1 does not require both parties to work at their greatest earning capacity within their education and training; (3) failing to weigh earning ability of the respective ex-spouses based on their professions; and (4) not imputing tax increases, debt repayments, interest costs, and present financial obligations of Mr. Floyd.
We limit the question on appeal to Mr. Floyd's contention that there was sufficient evidence to merit reduction or elimination of spousal support. His other contentions are specific factors to be considered within the context of the sufficiency question. Therefore, the first assignment of error will be addressed as encompassing the other three.
The evidence shows that at the time of the hearing in October, 1984, Mr. Floyd was 56 years old and self-employed as a Certified Public Accountant. Nancy Floyd, then 54 years old, was employed by Lynchburg General Hospital as a laboratory clerk. It appears that, prior to the separation, she had not been employed for approximately ten years.
Mr. Floyd testified that the financial condition of his business was deteriorating, causing him great difficulty in making spousal support payments. His evidence indicated, in part, that: (1) his business bank account had been overdrawn in four out of the first eight months in 1984; (2) his past-due payroll tax liability amounted to $3,494.89; (3) his accounts payable had risen while his accounts receivable had dropped; and (4) his salary level had decreased in the past two years. Mr. Floyd's monthly living expenses included significant amounts expended for support of the children of his current wife; one such expense was payment of college tuition for one of her daughters. The monthly expenses also included payments on a second mortgage taken out on his current wife's home, where the couple live, to buy out the interest of her former husband. Mr. Floyd admitted testifying in prior hearings that his business also was in bad shape at those times.
Cynthia Page, daughter of the parties and a Certified Public Accountant, was called to testify for Mr. Floyd. Prior to the hearing, she had the opportunity to examine the balance sheets and income statements of Mr. Floyd's accounting business for the past two years. Her testimony was that Mr. Floyd's income since 1982 had at least remained stable, if not improved somewhat. While she verified Mr. Floyd's testimony that his salary had decreased, she noted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stubblebine v. Stubblebine
...during the marriage, but their needs must be balanced against the other spouse's financial ability to pay." Floyd v. Floyd, 1 Va.App. 42, 45, 333 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1985). When considering an initial spousal support order or a modification, the trial court must consider each spouse's current ......
-
Lijeron v. Lijeron, Record No. 1344-16-4
...at 263. "When a trial court hears evidence ore tenus, its findings are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict," Floyd v. Floyd, 1 Va. App. 42, 45, 333 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1985), and we must defer to those findings. We "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, gr......
-
Stubblebine v. Stubblebine, 1915-94-4
...during the marriage, but their needs must be balanced against the other spouse's financial ability to pay." Floyd v. Floyd, 1 Va.App. 42, 45, 333 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1985). The expectations associated with retirement must be considered; however, we cannot ignore the policy underlying Code § 20......
-
Smith v. Thornton-Smith, Record No. 1165-06-4 (Va. App. 3/6/2007), Record No. 1165-06-4.
...ability to pay.'" Stubblebine v. Stubblebine, 22 Va. App. 703, 710, 473 S.E.2d 72, 75 (1996) (en banc) (quoting Floyd v. Floyd, 1 Va. App. 42, 45, 333 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1985)). Thus, the record must contain sufficient evidence not only of the payor spouse's ability to pay but also of the rec......