Werner v. Com.

Decision Date17 January 1972
Citation212 Va. 623,186 S.E.2d 76
PartiesRaymond E. WERNER v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia and Anna Lee Werner.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

George F. Tidey, Richmond (Tidey & Boice, Richmond, on brief), for appellant.

Michael Armstrong, Richmond (Mays, Valentine, Davenport & Moore, Richmond, on brief), for appellees.

Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, GORDON, HARRISON, COCHRAN and HARMAN, JJ.

COCHRAN, Justice.

Raymond E. Werner appeals from a judgment order ruling that the Jevenile and Domestic Relations Court of Henrico County had continuing jurisdiction to require him to make support payments to his former wife after entry of a decree by the Circuit Court of Henrico County granting her a divorce A vinculo matrimonii.

On January 13, 1969, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court entered an order requiring Werner to pay his wife, Anna Lee Werner, $50 per week 'for alimony'. On August 14, 1969, the divorce A mensa et thoro awarded to Anna by decree of the Circuit Court entered June 26, 1969, was merged into a divorce A vinculo. Neither decree included any reference to alimony or to the proceedings in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.

On April 23, 1970, Werner filed a petition in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for termination of alimony payments on the ground that Anna was regularly employed. After a hearing, the support order of January 13, 1969, was dismissed on the ground that the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court no longer had jurisdiction in view of the decrees entered in the divorce proceeding in the Circuit Court. Upon appeal by Anna, the Circuit Court held that the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court had erred in concluding that its jurisdiction had ceased. The case was ordered remanded to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court with directions to reinstate its order of support and thereafter 'continue with jurisdiction. . . .'. From this final order we granted Werner an appeal.

Werner contends that Code § 20--61 et seq., under which the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court entered the support order of January 13, 1969, continued jurisdiction in that court only so long as the parties remained husband and wife. He says that when Anna obtained a divorce decree in the Circuit Court without having provision therein made for alimony she lost her right to enforce the support order of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. We do not agree.

We are here concerned with the statutory construction of portions of Chapter 5, entitled 'Desertion and Nonsupport,' of Title 20 of the Code. Section 20--61 empowers the court to impose criminal penalties upon a husband who fails to support his wife. Exclusive original jurisdiction in nonsupport cases is vested in juvenile and domestic relations courts by § 20--67. Section 20--71 provides for temporary support orders before trial and § 20--72 authorizes, in lieu of imposition of criminal penalties under § 20--61, entry of an order directing the husband to pay a certain sum or a percentage of his income to his wife, either directly or through the court.

Several sections of the chapter safeguard the continuity of support orders. Under § 20--68, such an order remains in effect and enforceable by the court which entered it until the order is reversed or modified on appeal. Section 20--74 provides that a support order remains in effect, subject to change or modification as circumstances may require, until annulled by the court of original jurisdiction or the court to which an appeal may be taken.

Section 20--79(a) and (b), dealing with the effect of divorce proceedings, provides as follows:

'(a) In any case where an order has been entered under the provisions of this chapter, directing a husband to pay any sum or sums of money for the support of his wife, or concerning the care, custody or maintenance of any child, or children, the jurisdiction of the court which entered such order shall cease and its orders become inoperative upon the entry of a decree by the court or the judge thereof in vacation in a suit for divorce instituted in any court of record in this State having jurisdiction thereof, in which decree...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Cheng v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1990
  • Ferrell v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 1990
  • Godwin v. Com., 1040-85
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • April 5, 1988
  • Ozfidan v. Ozfidan
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • January 10, 2017
    ...jurisdiction of the [district court] would have ceased under § 20-79(a).'" (alteration in original) (quoting Werner v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 623, 625, 186 S.E.2d 76, 78 (1972))). In the first appeal of the case at bar, this Court interpreted Code § 20-79(b), Werner, and Reid, to conclude th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT