Thomas v. Thomas
Citation | 217 Va. 502,229 S.E.2d 887 |
Decision Date | 24 November 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 751372,751372 |
Parties | Shirley Strickler THOMAS v. Paul DeWitt THOMAS. Record |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Kaletah N. Carroll, Fairfax, for appellant.
Kikran V. Kavaljian, Jr., Alexandria (Lutz & Kavaljian, Alexandria, on brief), for appellee.
Before I'ANSON, C.J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, POFF and COMPTON, JJ.
The trial court awarded Shirley Strickler Thomas (wife or Mrs. Thomas) a divorce A vinculo matrimonii from Paul DeWitt Thomas (husband or Mr. Thomas) on the ground that the parties had lived separate and apart for more than one year, Code § 20--91(9). The final decree awarded the wife periodic payments of $200 per month for her support and maintenance but provided that these monthly payments would terminate after two years. The chancellor denied the wife's prayer for counsel fees.
The wife appeals, alleging that the trial court erred in:
(1) awarding an insufficient amount as support and maintenance;
(2) limiting the award of support and maintenance to a term of two years; and (3) failing to allow counsel fees for the wife's attorney.
While the chancellor heard evidence Ore tenus at a lengthy hearing on the issue of support and maintenance, no transcript of this hearing was filed. The parties are before us upon the following agreed statement of facts:
'During the thirty years of marriage, Mrs. Thomas' only employment outside of raising the four children, three of whom are only a year apart in age, and housekeeping, was as a substitute teacher. She is a college graduate although not qualified as far as her education is concerned to teach regularly. Her total salary for the last 12 months was $1,546 gross, which is the most she has ever made in any 12 month period within the last 5 years.
Here, since the wife has established her need for support and the husband's ability to provide it, and she was not shown to be guilty of misconduct entitling her husband a divorce, the chancellor had no choice but to award the wife support and maintenance. Rowand v. Rowand, 215 Va. 344, 346, 210 S.E.2d 149, 150--151 (1974); Code § 20--107.
While the wife argues that the monthly amount was too small, the chancellor, under the mandate of Code § 20--107, in fixing support and maintenance, was required to consider:
'(1) (t)he earning capacity, obligations and needs, and financial resources of the parties;
'(2) (t)he education and training of the parties and the ability and opportunity of the parties to secure such education and training;
'(3) (t)he standard of living established during the marriage;
'(4) (t)he duration of the marriage;
'(5) (t)he age, physical and mental condition of the parties; (and)
'(...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cirrito v. Cirrito
...its discretion in denying an award to the needy spouse. Relying on the Virginia Supreme Court's decision in Thomas v. Thomas, 217 Va. 502, 505, 229 S.E.2d 887, 890 (1976), we noted in Poliquin that "`[w]here . . . the trial court finds the wife needs and is entitled to maintenance and suppo......
-
Leake v. Taylor, Record No. 0737-09-4 (Va. App. 3/30/2010), Record No. 0737-09-4.
...that the circuit court erred by limiting his spousal support award to $2,000, when his need was much greater. He cites Thomas v. Thomas, 217 Va. 502, 229 S.E.2d 887 (1976), for the proposition that in a no-fault divorce, if a payee spouse establishes a need for support, and a payor spouse h......
- NAT. IND. COAL OPERATORS v. Old Republic Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 81-0094-A.
-
Barrs v. Barrs
...and awards made "upon the basis of the circumstances disclosed by the evidence at the time of the award." Thomas v. Thomas, 217 Va. 502, 505, 229 S.E.2d 887, 889-90 (1976). Code § 20-109 grants courts continuing jurisdiction to modify awards "where changed circumstances are demonstrated." T......