Harris v. Woodrum
| Decision Date | 18 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 1167-85,1167-85 |
| Citation | 3 Va.App. 428,350 S.E.2d 667 |
| Parties | Marged G. HARRIS (formerly Mary Marged Griffith Woodrum) v. Milton Lanier WOODRUM. Record |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
E. Thomas Cox (Patten, Wornom & Watkins, Newport News, on brief), for appellant.
Stephen D. Harris (McGuire, Woods & Battle, Richmond, on brief), for appellee.
Present: BAKER, BARROW and COLE, JJ.
Appellant, Marged G. Harris, formerly Mary Marged Woodrum, (herein referred to as wife), appeals from the August 8, 1985 judgment of the York County Circuit Court (trial court) which denied her motion to require Milton Lanier Woodrum (husband) to pay for their fifteen year old daughter's schooling at Foxcroft, a private boarding school in Middleburg. The trial court, after a hearing ore tenus on June 17, 1985, ruled that husband did not unreasonably withhold his approval of daughter attending the school.
The parties married on April 10, 1966, separated on November 1, 1975, and divorced on June 21, 1977. A marital settlement agreement dated March 21, 1977 (amended May 12, 1983) was incorporated by reference in the divorce decree. When husband refused to pay the cost associated with daughter's matriculation at Foxcroft, wife filed a motion in the trial court alleging that "such refusal by the defendant is contradictory to the order of this court as it is per se unreasonable and will cause harm to the infant daughter of the parties." The section of the agreement pertinent to the resolution of this case is Paragraph 5 entitled, Support, Maintenance, and Private Primary and Secondary Schooling for Children. It reads in part:
In addition, the Husband agrees to pay tuition, room and board of private, primary, preparatory and secondary schooling as and when due for the children, or either of them, subject to the Husband's approval of the particular school or schools prior to the child's being enrolled therein, which approval the Husband agrees not to unreasonably withhold.
When the agreement was executed, daughter was six years old. In the ensuing years, she enrolled in Jamestown Academy; in at least two public schools (Magruder and Waller Mill); and in Hampton Roads Academy. At the time this action was initiated she attended Walsingham Academy, a day school in Williamsburg, near where she lived with wife. She expressed a desire to attend a boarding school and, with wife's approval, applied and was accepted at Foxcroft.
Wife felt that the education at Foxcroft would be better than at Walsingham, that Foxcroft had a better sports program, and that daughter had her heart set on Foxcroft. On direct examination, wife appeared to have personal knowledge of daughter's record at Walsingham. She responded to her attorney's question as follows:
But she ended up with B's and C's. She has had some difficulty with Latin and has pulled those grades up.
On cross examination, in response to husband's attorney, it was revealed that she had not seen daughter's report card:
In addition, the trial judge who reviewed daughter's grades remarked: "And looking at her grades (they were shown actually to be C's and D's), I think you need to do something to try to get things going right."
Following daughter's application to Foxcroft, wife decided to pursue a Masters of Law degree in South Royalton, Vermont.
Husband did not generally favor boarding schools, stating that if a structured environment was needed "the impetus should come from home," and that the responsibility should not be turned "over to a boarding school." He asserted that it was not a good idea for someone of daughter's age to be taken out of a good home and placed in a boarding school atmosphere. He viewed a home environment as better for their fifteen year old daughter and noted that there were good public and private day schools in Vermont, near wife's school, or in Roanoke, near him. He added that his decision in part was based on his own prior personal experience in boarding school.
While contending that basically he was opposed to boarding schools for their fifteen year old daughter, he was not opposed to them in every case. If there was a sound reason for a child to be sent to a boarding school, then he would concur. He noted that when a sound reason was given for placing his son in a private boarding school he agreed. The reason given him was that son was required to repeat a grade in his school. The headmaster felt that he should not drop back a year in the same school and further recommended that he be enrolled in a boarding school. Husband stated that he was given no compelling reason for daughter to leave a good home environment at this time. In fact, he thought that it would probably be counterproductive.
When husband learned that wife intended to enroll in a school in Vermont, he "looked into schools up there" which would be suitable for daughter. There was a public school and a private Catholic school within forty-five minutes of South Royalton, and a private day school within thirty-five minutes. He received information that all three schools' average SAT scores were equal to or higher than Foxcroft, and that the two private schools were college oriented.
Daughter's teachers expressed opinions that she was capable of achieving a better academic record than she had produced. Husband's position was that he had the right to expect daughter to put forth her best efforts to improve her record before granting her desire to attend the school with the better sports program. While the cost 1 of Foxcroft was not a controlling factor in his decision, husband concluded that before such expenditure was made, a structured home environment should be instituted and daughter should demonstrate her willingness to attain the level of her capabilities.
The issues submitted to the trial court by wife's petition are twofold: (1) whether husband unreasonably withheld consent to daughter's enrollment at Foxcroft; and (2) whether the evidence established that harm would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meade v. Commonwealth
...is in the better position to evaluate the evidence than an appellate court which reviews only a cold record." Harris v. Woodrum , 3 Va. App. 428, 433, 350 S.E.2d 667 (1986). Accordingly, "[t]he credibility of a witness, the weight accorded the testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from ......
-
Carolino v. Commonwealth
...to observe the testimony and demeanor of all witnesses" (quoting Lopez v. Commonwealth, 73 Va.App. 70, 81 (2021))); Harris v. Woodrum, 21 3 Va.App. 428, 433 (1986) (We long have recognized that a "trial judge who views the witnesses as their testimony is given is in the better position to e......
-
Hargrove v. Com.
...20 Va.App. at 138, 455 S.E.2d at 732, because, unlike "an appellate court which reviews only a cold record," Harris v. Woodrum, 3 Va.App. 428, 433, 350 S.E.2d 667, 670 (1986), the fact finder "has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented," Sandoval, 20 Va.App. at 138......
-
Delanoy v. Delanoy
...of the witnesses - which we, of course, cannot now do on appeal, since this Court "reviews only a cold record." Harris v. Woodrum, 3 Va. App. 428, 433, 350 S.E.2d 667, 670 (1986); see also Bradley v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 1126, 1136, 86 S.E.2d 828, 834 (1955) ("The living record contains ma......