Pence v. Pence
| Decision Date | 18 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 1567-15-4,Record No. 1813-15-4,Record No. 1591-15-4 |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | LIZA MARIE PENCE v. GREGORY ALLEN PENCE GREGORY ALLEN PENCE v. LIZA MARIE PENCE |
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Chief Judge Huff, Judges Decker and O'Brien
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
Demian J. McGarry (Curran Moher Weis, P.C., on briefs), for Liza Marie Pence.
Gregory L. Murphy (Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP, on briefs), for Gregory Allen Pence.
Three consolidated appeals are taken from final orders of the Circuit Court of Arlington County ("trial court") relating to the divorce of Liza Marie Pence ("wife") and Gregory Allen Pence ("husband"). Wife asserts fourteen assignments of error to the trial court's equitable distribution award. Husband asserts three assignments of error to the trial court's rulings onattorneys' fees, spousal support, and child support. For the following reasons, this Court affirms in part and reverses in part.
"When reviewing a trial 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." Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 258, 578 S.E.2d 833, 835 (2003). So viewed, the evidence is as follows.1
Husband and wife married on June 9, 2001, in Fairfax County, Virginia. The couple had three children: K.M.P. (born December 5, 2001), G.A.P. (born June 30, 2003), and K.A.P. (born February 19, 2009). Sharing of household responsibilities and child-rearing duties shifted between husband and wife over the course of their marriage, and in the later years of their marriage, husband assumed an increasing portion of the household duties and responsibilities.
A few years after marrying, husband started a business known as "Pence Quality Homes" ("PQH"). PQH built or renovated homes. In the early years of the business, wife assisted in some of the office and bookkeeping responsibilities of PQH. Additionally, wife was the beneficiary of a substantial trust fund established for her by her grandparents. As a result, wife's separate trust fund was sometimes relied upon to support real estate loans for projects of PQH. During the course of their marriage, husband and wife acquired properties to be worked on by PQH, often utilizing that property as the marital residence during the renovation period.
Husband testified that until their marital breakdown which began "around 2012," wife had been attentive to him and to the children and did her best to help in the business. Leading upto their separation in 2014, however, wife began expending increasingly large sums on personal travel and recreation and detaching herself from involvement in family and business affairs. In November 2013, husband confronted wife about an affair she was having with her personal trainer. Although wife promised to stop, in January 2014, husband discovered she had resumed the affair. By final divorce decree entered on September 4, 2015, husband was granted a divorce based on the ground of wife's adultery.
Incident to the divorce proceeding, the trial court conducted a hearing on equitable distribution and ordered distribution pursuant to its letter opinion dated July 23, 2015. In its opinion, the trial court found that "[wife] clearly became disenchanted with her role as wife and mother and was enjoying spending 'quality time' outside of the home." Furthermore, the trial court noted that "given the grounds upon which the Court is granting the divorce, [wife] dissolved more than the marriage - she dissolved their business relationship." After working through the factors of Code § 20-107.3(E), the trial court concluded that "[g]iven the overall contributions of [husband] to the business - he was the face of the business . . . it is clear that [husband] contributed more personal equity, financial risk, and personal good will than [wife] did to the endeavor." The trial court acknowledged that wife did make substantial contributions initially, but determined that husband "more than matched" these. Consequently, the trial court awarded much of PQH's property interests to husband, splitting the liability between husband and wife who equally benefitted from its operation during the marriage.
The trial court also denied husband's request for emergency spousal support, child support, and the parties' respective requests for attorney's fees and costs. In denying husband spousal support, the trial court reasoned that in light of husband's receipt of most of PQH's property in equitable distribution, husband should be able to generate sufficient income for his family again. In denying the parties' motions for attorneys' fees and costs, the trial courtconcluded that both parties shared in the responsibility for the substantial fees and costs accrued and that an award of fees and costs was not warranted under the circumstances. Finally, in denying child support, the trial court relied upon its reasoning articulated in the previous rulings from the equitable distribution hearing, and concluded that "because of the earnings capabilities" neither husband nor wife should need child support payments from the other.
Husband and wife noted exceptions to the trial court's orders and wife filed a motion for reconsideration, which was not granted. This appeal followed.
Wife has assigned error to fourteen aspects of the equitable distribution award. Her assignments, as grouped by wife, are as follows:
Review of a trial court's equitable distribution decision is conducted under an abuse of discretion standard.
"Fashioning an equitable distribution award lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge[,] and that award will not be set aside unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it."
Torian v. Torian, 38 Va. App. 167, 181, 562 S.E.2d 355, 362 (2002) (emphasis added) (first quoting Srinivasan v. Srinivasan, 10 Va. App. 728, 732, 396 S.E.2d 675, 678 (1990), and then quoting Matthews v. Matthews, 26 Va. App. 638, 645, 496 S.E.2d 126, 129 (1998)). "On appeal, a trial court's equitable distribution award will not be overturned unless the Court finds 'an abuse of discretion, misapplication or wrongful application of the equitable distribution statute, or lack of evidence to support the award.'" Wiencko v. Takayama, 62 Va. App. 217,229-30, 745 S.E.2d 168, 174 (2013) (quoting McIlwain v. McIlwain, 52 Va. App. 644, 661, 666 S.E.2d 538, 547 (2008)). In light of this standard, wife's assignments of error are analyzed in turn below.
In her first two assignments of error, wife claims that the trial court abused its discretion by making an award that is punitive in two ways: (1) "in awarding [husband] approximately 102% of the marital assets when there was no evidence before the court to justify such a punitive and disproportionate result," and (2) "when it factored in the grounds for divorce in the equitable distribution of marital assets when there was no evidence presented that the fault ground of adultery . . . had any monetary impact on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial