Ipsen v. Moxley

• Decision Date: 10 April 2007
• Docket Number: Record No. 0173-06-2.
• Citation: 642 S.E.2d 798,49 Va. App. 555
• Parties: Victoria IPSEN v. Nathan Roger MOXLEY.
• Court: Virginia Court of Appeals

642 S.E.2d 798

49 Va. App. 555

Victoria IPSEN v. Nathan Roger MOXLEY.

Record No. 0173-06-2.

Court of Appeals of Virginia, Richmond.

April 10, 2007.

William T. Fitzhugh (Bowen, Champlin, Carr, Foreman & Rockecharlie, on briefs), Richmond, for appellant.

Denis C. Englisby (Englisby, Englisby, Vaughn & Englisby, on brief), Chesterfield, for appellee.

Present: FELTON, C.J., McCLANAHAN, J. and FITZPATRICK, Senior Judge.

ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN, Judge.

Victoria Ipsen (wife) appeals the circuit court's decision that Nathan Roger Moxley (husband) owes her no duty of child or spousal support. Wife contends the trial court erred in finding: (1) that a juvenile and domestic relations district court order awarding child and spousal support was nullified by a subsequent pendente lite support order entered in husband's suit for divorce, which he later voluntarily nonsuited; and (2) that laches barred husband's claim that he owes no support. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court, and remand for a determination of the child and spousal support that is owed to wife.

I. BACKGROUND

On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to husband. See Martin v. Bales, 7 Va.App. 141, 142, 371 S.E.2d 823, 824 (1988). The parties married in 1980, had three children (born in 1982, 1984 and 1993), and separated in 1997. On April 13, 1998, the district court awarded wife child and spousal support. The parties did not appeal this ruling.

In October 1998, husband filed an action for divorce in the circuit court for the County of Chesterfield. On July 23, 1999, the circuit court granted wife's request for pendente lite child and spousal support effective as of February 1, 1999.¹ Husband subsequently moved for a voluntary nonsuit of the action, which the circuit court granted by order dated January 8, 2000.

Later in 2000, wife filed her own suit for divorce. The parties were divorced by final decree dated February 21, 2002. The decree noted, "[t]his Court takes no jurisdiction of the matters of child custody, child support, or spousal support as those matters are being resolved in the Chesterfield Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court." The parties endorsed the decree without exception.

Following the nonsuit of husband's divorce action in 2000, the parties continued to appear before the district court to amend or enforce the district court's April 13, 1998 support order. Husband sought to reduce or abate his obligations while wife sought to enforce the order. Husband filed three separate motions to amend his support obligations under the order: March 30, 2001 (abate child support), June 9, 2001 (abate child support and recalculate remaining child support and spousal support), and October 21, 2002 (abate child support). The district court held various hearings on the motions and continued the case numerous times. At a show cause hearing on August 20, 2001, the district court found that husband ceased making support payments as of November 1, 2000, and was four months in arrears on those payments. On October 29, 2001, the district court again ruled that husband was in arrears on his support obligations. On December 23, 2003, the district court ultimately denied husband's pending motions to amend his support obligations and ordered the matter stricken from the docket, except with respect to the show cause against husband for failure to pay support. Husband appealed this ruling.

On appeal to the circuit court, husband argued that the circuit court's 1999 pendente lite support order nullified the district court's 1998 support order and divested that court of jurisdiction pursuant to Code § 20-79.² The trial court agreed, ruling that husband owed wife no child or spousal support. The court reasoned that, by entering the pendente lite support order, the circuit court "assumed full jurisdiction over the issues of child and spousal support and [its order] irrevocably superseded all previous district court orders." The court further stated that husband's subsequent nonsuit of the divorce action "terminat[ed] the efficacy of any [o]rder in place during the pendency of the matter" and no statute "permits a court to rehabilitate a superseded order." The court thus held that there was no support order in effect after the nonsuit and that, accordingly, husband had paid to wife all of the support the law required. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

Wife does not dispute that the circuit court's pendente lite support order divested the district court of jurisdiction under Code § 20-79. Wife argues, however, that husband's nonsuit of the circuit court divorce proceeding, in which that temporary order was entered, effectively restored the authority of the district court's 1998 support order. Wife contends the circuit court therefore erred in holding husband owed her no duty of child or spousal support. We agree.³

A.

This case presents a question of law involving the interpretation and application of Code § 20-79. We thus "review the trial court's judgment de novo." Colbert v. Commonwealth, 47 Va.App. 390, 394, 624 S.E.2d 108, 110 (2006); see Rollins v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 73, 79, 554 S.E.2d 99, 102 (2001) ("[W]e review the trial court's statutory interpretations and legal conclusions de novo." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Pursuant to the express terms of Code § 20-79, the district court's jurisdiction did "cease" and its 1998 support order became "inoperative" upon entry of the circuit court's pendente lite support order. The dispositive issue in this case, however, is whether the district court's jurisdiction over support, and the operation of its support order, ended permanently with the entry of the circuit court's pendente lite order, or rather ended only temporarily, having been revived by the subsequent nonsuit of the divorce proceeding. Given the temporary nature of a pendente lite support order, the effect of a voluntary nonsuit in returning the parties to status quo, and the discernible legislative intent, we conclude that the district court's jurisdiction and the operation of its support order automatically resumed, by operation of law, upon the termination of the divorce proceeding by the nonsuit order.

Code § 20-79 does not define the term "cease," or the term "inoperative." Nor does the statute otherwise set forth in specific terms the duration that the district court's jurisdiction over support shall "cease," or the duration that its existing support orders are to remain "inoperative," upon entry of a circuit court decree providing for support in a divorce proceeding. We thus turn to settled principles of statutory construction for guidance. "We give the words of a statute `their common, ordinary and accepted meaning,' absent an indication by the legislature to the contrary...." Germek v. Germek, 34 Va.App. 1, 8, 537 S.E.2d 596, 600 (2000) (quoting Gen. Trading Corp. v. Motor Vehicle Dealer Bd., 28 Va.App. 264, 268, 503 S.E.2d 809, 811 (1998)). We are also required to "view the entire body of legislation and the statutory scheme to determine the true intention of each part. In interpreting a statute, the Code of Virginia constitutes a single body of law, and other sections can be looked to where the same phraseology is employed." M.G. v. Albemarle County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 41 Va.App. 170, 181-82, 583 S.E.2d 761, 766-67 (2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Under a similar principle, "`[s]tatutes which are not inconsistent with one another, and which relate to the same subject matter, are in pari materia, and should be construed together; and effect should be given to them all, although they contain no reference to one another, and were passed at different times.'" Prillaman v. Commonwealth, 199 Va. 401, 406, 100 S.E.2d 4, 7 (1957) (quoting Mitchell v. Witt, 98 Va. 459, 461, 36 S.E. 528, 528 (1900)).

Ultimately, "`[t]he proper course [in] all [statutory construction] cases is to search out and follow the true intent of the legislature, and to adopt that sense of the words which harmonizes best with the context, and promotes in the fullest manner the apparent policy and objectives of the legislature.'" Colbert, 47 Va.App. at 394-95, 624 S.E.2d at 110 (quoting Jones v. Rhea, 130 Va. 345, 372, 107 S.E. 814, 823 (1921)). In doing so, "we must, as far as possible, place ourselves in the light that [the legislature] enjoyed, looking at things as they appeared to it, and discover its purpose from the language used in connection with attending circumstances." Franklin and Pittsylvania Ry. Co. v. Shoemaker, 156 Va. 619, 623, 159 S.E. 100, 102 (1931) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

B.

Under generally accepted definitions of the two subject terms, both may be used in reference to either a temporary or permanent duration. The word "cease" means "[t]o stop," "suspend," or "bring to an end." Black's Law Dictionary 237 (8th ed. 2004); see also American Heritage College Dictionary 224 (3d ed. 1997) (defining "cease" to include "pause"); Webster's Third New International Dictionary 367 (1993) (defining "cessation" as "a temporary or final ceasing or discontinuance"). The word "inoperative" is defined as "[h]aving no force or effect," or "not operative." Black's Law Dictionary, supra, at 806.

In other parts of the Code, the word "cease" is used in a wide variety of contexts, many of which are descriptive of temporary conditions or requirements, as well as, to a lesser extent, those that are permanent.⁴ The word "inoperative," on the other hand, is not widely used in the Code. Where it is used, however, the context is generally one in which an "inoperative" object may again become operative. Otherwise, it is used in a way that is not necessarily descriptive of a permanent condition.⁵

Under the applicable statutory scheme, the district and circuit courts are vested with concurrent jurisdiction...