Yates v. Yates

• Court: Virginia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: STUART A. RAPHAEL, JUDGE
• Docket Number: 1294-24-3
• Decision Date: 28 October 2025
• Citation: Yates v. Yates, 1294-24-3 (Va. App. Oct 28, 2025)
• Parties: JAMES DOUGLAS YATES v. HASSIE REGINA WARD YATES

1

JAMES DOUGLAS YATES v. HASSIE REGINA WARD YATES

No. 1294-24-3

Court of Appeals of Virginia

October 28, 2025

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUCHANAN COUNTY Brian K. Patton, Judge

Robert M. Galumbeck (Galumbeck Stiltner & Gillespie, Attorneys on brief), for appellant.

Robert J. Breimann (Street Law Firm LLP, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Raphael, Lorish and Bernhard Argued at Christiansburg, Virginia

MEMORANDUM OPINION^[*]

STUART A. RAPHAEL, JUDGE

Appealing the portion of the trial court's final decree addressing equitable distribution, James Douglas Yates (husband) claims that the trial court erred by failing to consider that he brought the disputed real property into the marriage as separate property. Hassie Regina Ward Yates (wife) assigns cross-error to the trial court's valuation of husband's cash assets and its refusal to award attorney fees. Finding no reason to disturb the trial court's judgment, we affirm.

Background

Since wife prevailed in the bench trial below, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to her, granting her "the benefit of any reasonable inferences." Starr v Starr, 70 Va.App. 486, 488 (2019) (quoting Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va.App. 255, 258 (2003)). Husband and wife married in August 2000 and separated in July 2016.^[1] The parties each had children from previous marriages, all of whom were adults when the parties separated. No children were born of the marriage.

Husband brought two houses into the marriage. One was used as the marital residence, the other as an income-generating rental property. Both houses were located on the same plot of land in Grundy. In April 2005, husband deeded both properties to the parties' respective children, reserving life estates for himself and wife. The deed instrument specified that it was a "deed of gift," given "without money having exchanged hands." In December 2007, the children executed a deed of gift transferring the properties back to husband and wife as tenants by the entirety. The properties were retitled in both parties' names.

Both parties contributed money and labor to improving the marital residence and the rental property. They lived together in the marital residence until wife moved out in July 2016. Husband and wife each received social-security and retirement benefits during the marriage. Husband earned additional income from a part-time job with the county. Husband stored money earned from that job in a personal safe. Wife did not have access to the safe. The two houses and the cash in husband's safe are the disputed assets in this appeal.

The sprawling litigation below started with three hearings between October 2017 and February 2018. More than a year later, Judge Patrick R. Johnson wrote an opinion letter addressing the parties' separation date, the classification and equitable distribution of property, and spousal support. Judge Johnson found that the parties separated on July 16, 2016, following wife's departure from the marital residence. He classified the marital residence as marital property but found that the rental property remained husband's separate property. Lastly, based on husband's W2 forms and his testimony that he put "all of his paychecks in the safe," Judge Johnson found that husband had $74,592 in cash that was subject to equitable distribution. The letter declined to award attorney fees.

Judge Johnson directed wife's counsel to prepare an order "in accordance with the Court's ruling" and to forward the order to husband's counsel for endorsement. Husband refused to endorse the order and moved the court to reconsider its rulings. Wife also moved the court to reconsider its attorney-fee ruling. The court denied the motions after a hearing on August 17, 2020.

Eleven months later, and without entering a final order, Judge Johnson recused himself based on a conflict of interest. Judge Brian K. Patton took over the case. Following a status hearing and review of the case file, Judge Patton ordered a partial re-trial. The court entered a final divorce decree on September 26, 2022, reserving the issues of equitable distribution, spousal support, and attorney fees. The parties litigated those issues in a one-day trial in September 2023. The record does not include a transcript from that trial.

This appeal involves the court's findings from the second trial. The parties had stipulated to certain findings and evidence and provided the court with a truncated list of the outstanding issues, which included: (1) the property classification of the marital home and husband's rental property, (2) the amount of cash in husband's safe, and (3) wife's request for attorney fees. By letter opinion dated April 1, 2024, the trial court found that both houses were marital property subject to equitable distribution. The court found that although the properties were "originally owned by the husband prior to the marriage," they were deeded to the children in 2005, then "deeded back to the parties . . . as tenants by the entirety with joint rights of survivorship" in 2007. Both houses were "retitled in the parties' joint names," and husband's attempt to trace the houses to his separate property was "inadequate."

As for the cash in husband's safe, the trial court credited husband's testimony "that he would take money out at times and there was never more than $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 in the safe." Although husband agreed that "$65,000.00 in cash would have fit inside his safe," he denied ever having "$70,000.00 in the safe," as wife contends. Wife "testified that she never had access to the safe" and "she had no idea how much money was in it." Refusing to speculate, the court accepted husband's $2,000 estimate, deeming it marital property subject to equitable distribution.

The court awarded husband the marital residence and the rental property. Wife received $21,105 as "half of the proceeds received from the rental house" and an additional lump sum of $120,000. The court also awarded wife spousal support of $550 per month, supplementing her monthly income from social security of $1,267 per month. The court directed husband's counsel to prepare an order consistent with its letter opinion, reserving the issue of wife's attorney fees. At the attorney-fee hearing on July 10, 2024, the court denied wife's fee request. The court observed that the case had been "pending for over a decade" and "[t]here was no reason why it should have been." The court found that "both sides [were] at fault for the delays." The court denied wife's motion to reconsider that ruling.

The court memorialized its rulings in a final order entered July 10, 2024. Husband noted a timely appeal. Wife raises two cross-errors.

Analysis

Husband argues that the trial court did not give enough weight to certain factors under Code § 20-107.3(E) when it equitably distributed the marital residence and rental property. He concedes that tracing the properties under Code § 20-107.3(A) is "not appropriate" because they were deeded back to the parties by their children, a "third party." Husband argues the trial court "refused to consider" that he "brought his families' real property into the marriage as separate property." Wife's cross-errors challenge the trial court's valuation of husband's cash and its failure to award her attorney fees. As explained below, we find neither party's claims meritorious.^[2]

I. The trial court properly distributed the marital residence and rental property.

On appeal from an equitable-distribution award, we recognize "that the trial court's job is a difficult one, and we rely heavily on the discretion of the trial judge in weighing the many considerations and circumstances that are presented in each case." Payne v. Payne, 77 Va.App. 570, 596 (2023) (quoting Stark v. Dinarany, 73 Va.App. 733, 749-50 (2021)). Accordingly, the trial court's equitable-distribution award will not be overturned absent "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 (2013) (quoting McIlwain v. McIlwain, 52 Va.App. 644, 661 (2008)).

In making its equitable-distribution award, "the [trial] court must consider all of the factors in Code § 20-107.3(E)." Payne, 77 Va.App. at 596 (alteration in original) (quoting Stark, 73 Va.App. at 750). But it "is not required to quantify the weight given" to each factor, "nor is it required to weigh each factor equally." Jessee v. Jessee, 74 Va.App. 40, 58 (2021) (quoting Marion v. Marion, 11 Va.App. 659, 664 (1991)).

The record belies husband's assertion that Judge Patton did not consider the fact that husband brought the two houses into the marriage. To the contrary, Judge Patton's letter opinion acknowledges that both houses were "originally owned by . . . husband prior to the marriage." But husband deeded those properties to the parties' children, who then transferred the properties back to the parties during the marriage as tenants by the entirety, retitled in both parties' names.

And there were other factors that weighed in favor of giving wife half the value of both properties, including that both parties made "sacrifices" and paid money to improve them. The parties lived together in the marital residence for 16 years. Both parties contributed positively to the "well-being of the family," and wife provided "a lot of the daily non-monetary contributions in cleaning and cooking meals." Citing Code § 20-107.3(E)(11)'s catch-all provision, the court noted that it had "the opportunity to observe the parties' demeanor and testimony in court." Thus, the record shows that the trial court properly considered the statutory factors in equitably distributing the...