Ozfidan v. Ozfidan

• Court: Virginia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: MEMORANDUM OPINION BY CHIEF JUDGE GLEN A. HUFF
• Decision Date: 10 January 2017
• Docket Number: Record No. 0806-16-2
• Citation: Ozfidan v. Ozfidan, Record No. 0806-16-2 (Va. App. Jan 10, 2017)
• Parties: OSCAR O. OZFIDAN v. PAMELA L. OZFIDAN

OSCAR O. OZFIDAN v. PAMELA L. OZFIDAN

Record No. 0806-16-2

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

JANUARY 10, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

Present: Chief Judge Huff, Judges Russell and AtLee

Argued at Richmond, Virginia

MEMORANDUM OPINION^* BY CHIEF JUDGE GLEN A. HUFF

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY

John Marshall, Judge¹

A. Russell Watson (Hairfield Morton, PLC, on briefs), for appellant.

Misty D. Whitehead (MD Whitehead Law, PLLC, on brief), for appellee.

Oscar O. Ozfidan ("husband") appeals a ruling of the Circuit Court of Henrico County ("trial court") ordering him to pay $1200 per month in spousal support to Pamela L. Ozfidan ("wife") indefinitely. For the following reasons, this Court affirms the trial court's rulings.

I. BACKGROUND

Following established principles of appellate review, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to wife, the party prevailing below, granting wife the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be fairly drawn. Chretien v. Chretien, 53 Va. App. 200, 202, 670 S.E.2d 45, 46 (2008) (citing Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 258, 578 S.E.2d 833, 835 (2003)). So viewed, the evidence established that the parties were married in Lubbock, Texas in1998 where husband was earning his Ph.D. in economics. Wife, who has a high school diploma, primarily supported the family by working at a local newspaper; husband contributed additional income he earned as a teaching assistant. Once husband obtained his degree, the parties moved to Richmond after husband accepted a position as an economist for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Wife worked as a flight attendant until she became pregnant with the parties' twin children, born in 2005. The parties agreed that wife would be a stay-at-home mother until the children began attending kindergarten.

According to wife's testimony, the transition to her remaining at home after years of frequently being away as a flight attendant created strain in the marriage, culminating in an incident the night of March 3-4, 2012. On that night, according to wife, husband knocked her out of bed and began attacking her, striking her with enough force to break her arm. A friend transported wife to the hospital where she was diagnosed with an ulnar fracture. After the attack, wife obtained a two-year protective order against husband and received temporary exclusive possession of the marital home.

On April 13, 2012, wife filed a divorce complaint in the trial court, alleging that husband committed the fault ground of cruelty. Throughout the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the parties also conducted parallel proceedings in the Henrico County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court ("JDR court") regarding, among other issues, spousal support. The JDR court entered a final order regarding child and spousal support on October 12, 2012. Wife did not request an award of spousal support in her divorce complaint because "she was satisfied with the [JDR court] retaining jurisdiction over same and did not wish to incur unnecessary expenses re-litigating the issues."

The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on November 25, 2013 addressing the grounds for divorce, equitable distribution, fees, and costs. The trial court sua sponte raised theissue of spousal support during the hearing, asking whether wife was seeking spousal support as part of the divorce proceedings. Wife indicated that spousal support was currently before the JDR court in an independent action, and the trial court ultimately declined to hear the spousal support issue because the divorce complaint did not request spousal support and a hearing on spousal support was pending before the JDR court. On December 11, 2013, the trial court issued a letter opinion concluding that "[t]he divorce will be entered on the grounds of cruelty." The letter opinion's sole treatment of the spousal support issue was a note that "[m]atters of spousal support . . . will be transferred to the [JDR court]."

On February 18, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on husband's motion to reconsider the December 11, 2013 ruling. During that hearing, husband asked the trial court to reopen the issue of spousal support. The trial court declined to do so after the parties informed it that husband's de novo appeal of the JDR court's spousal support award had been docketed in the trial court for hearing on March 10, 2014. The trial court then continued the matter to the March 10 hearing in order to "hear the appeal and then . . . hear the oral motion that we got today to have this Court determine a permanent award of spousal support as part of the final decree" on that date. Despite being referenced throughout the briefs, the record does not include any transcript of the March 10, 2014 proceeding or any written orders from the trial court arising from that hearing.²

On March 18, 2014, husband filed a "Motion to Decree Spousal Support" in the trial court, which stated in its entirety:

Comes now the defendant . . . by counsel, pursuant to Section 20-107.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and moves this Court to decree the maintenance and support of the spouses and, if any such decree be made, order that said support and maintenance be made in periodic payments for a defined duration.

Wife filed a response to this motion as well as a motion to enter a final decree on March 20, 2014. The trial court entered its final divorce decree on June 9, 2014, ruling, inter alia, "[Husband] moved for an award of spousal support which motion was overruled as plaintiff's pleadings never requested spousal support. [Husband] objects."

Husband filed a notice of appeal to this Court on July 9, 2014. On May 5, 2015, this Court issued its opinion holding with respect to the spousal support issue that "it was error for the circuit court to base its decision on spousal support solely on the fact that wife did not request spousal support in her circuit court divorce pleadings" and remanding the spousal support issue to the trial court for reconsideration.

The trial court held a hearing on the remanded issues on November 16, 2015. At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for husband stated:

What I want to make clear to the Court going forward is with regards to [husband's] motion to decrease spousal support, we are specifically limiting the request for relief to a denial of spousalsupport for wife. [Husband] is not seeking spousal support for himself, nor is he seeking a reservation.

After presenting evidence of husband's inability to pay spousal support, husband argued that his motion to decree spousal support only permitted the court to deny spousal support to wife and presented a memorandum in support of that motion. Counsel for wife argued that because the relief husband requested at the hearing was new and not contemplated by his motion to decree spousal support, she should be entitled to make an oral motion to award spousal support to wife if the trial court accepted husband's argument. The trial court ultimately took husband's motion under advisement, suspended the hearing, and directed wife to prepare a written response to husband's memorandum.

The trial court resumed the hearing on February 8, 2016, ruling that the issue of spousal support was properly before the trial court—thereby rejecting husband's contention that his motion to decree spousal support limited the trial court to a denial of spousal support to wife. The trial court also noted its belief that any award of spousal support it issued must be of limited duration as pled in the motion to decree spousal support. Wife then presented evidence in favor of an award of spousal support to wife. The trial court issued a letter opinion on February 11, 2016 in which it first concluded that it was not, in fact, limited to a specific duration in making an award of spousal support, then ordered husband pay wife spousal support of $1200 per month for an indefinite duration. The trial court entered a final order pursuant to the letter opinion on April 25, 2016 to which husband noted his objections.

This appeal followed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"In reviewing a spousal support award, we are mindful that the trial court has broad discretion in awarding and fixing the amount of spousal support." Brooks v. Brooks, 27Va. App. 314, 317, 498 S.E.2d 461, 463 (1998). As such, the trial court's decision regarding spousal support "will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion." Gamble v. Gamble, 14 Va. App. 558, 574, 421 S.E.2d 635, 644 (1992). A court "by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law. . . . The abuse-of-discretion standard includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions." Giraldi v. Giraldi, 64 Va. App. 676, 682, 771 S.E.2d 687, 690 (2015) (quoting Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 260, 661 S.E.2d 415, 445 (2008)).

This Court reviews questions of law, including matters of statutory interpretation, de novo. See Harrell v. Harrell, 272 Va. 652, 656, 636 S.E.2d 391, 393 (2006); see also Anthony v. Skolnick-Lozano, 63 Va. App. 76, 83, 754 S.E.2d 549, 552 (2014). Further, the party challenging the trial court's decision on appeal "bears the burden to demonstrate error on the part of the trial court." Barker v. Barker, 27 Va. App. 519, 535, 500 S.E.2d 240, 248 (1998).

III. ANALYSIS

Husband's appeal challenges the trial court's spousal support rulings in ten assignments of error:

1. The Court erred in making a spousal support award to [wife] when she did not have a valid pleading before the Court requesting support for herself.

2. The Court erred in denying [husband's] motion for summary judgment and motion to strike [wife's] case based on her failure to request spousal support in this proceeding.

3. The Court erred in improperly construing [husband's] motion to decree spousal support as a request for an award of spousal support to [wife].

4. The Court erred in holding that [husband's] motion to decree

...