Read this article on my Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer blog to see how futile a Texas father's efforts were and what the results were in his case.  He could have avoided this request by just making a little more effort and taking a few more steps, but he was far too trusting of his wife's attorney how failed to complete the work that needed to be done.

In the case of Hughes v. Hughes, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the trial court erred and reversed the trial court's equitable distribution award and remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider the equitable distribution of the parties’ property and debt.  Wife was granted a divorce from husband in 2010. When the parties separated, they had significant joint debts, in the form of mortgages and a home equity line of credit (HELOC), encumbering the marital residence. Much of the debt was used to finance a business run by both parties during the marriage. Husband continues to operate this business. Shortly after the divorce proceedings began, and before the trial court addressed equitable distribution, husband filed for bankruptcy. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, the court stayed the equitable distribution hearing during the bankruptcy proceedings. In bankruptcy, husband discharged his obligations to the creditors who held the mortgage and home equity line, leaving wife solely responsible for the entire obligation to their third-party creditors. After a hearing on equitable distribution, the trial court granted wife the marital residence and granted husband possession and control of the business. In granting wife the marital residence, the trial court noted that it “has no value in excess of the liens currently against it,” i.e., the marital residence had a negative equity. The trial court stated that the negative equity was in the amount of $100,000 to $150,000. However, when the trial court specifically turned to the issue of debt, it apportioned only two credit card debts. The trial court properly classified the marital residence as marital property and properly valued the marital residence. However, the trial court failed to properly account for or apportion the mortgage loan or the HELOC. Further, it failed to take into account the negative equity in the marital residence in arriving at its equitable distribution award. “[T]o the extent that a valid indebtedness which is secured creates an encumbrance on the legal title, that indebtedness must be considered by the trial court in determining the value of the marital property for purposes of determining the amount of the monetary award.” Trivett v. Trivett, 7 Va. App. 148, 151, 371 S.E.2d 560, 562 (1988). At the time of the equitable distribution award, the marital residence was encumbered by the mortgage and HELOC. The trial court failed to consider these encumbrances in determining the value of the marital property and the apportionment of marital debt. Therefore, the trial court misapplied the statutory mandate contained in Code § 20-107.3 and, in doing so, abused its discretion.


--Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Divorce and Equitable Distribution Lawyer.  For help with your property or debt distribution issues, please contact me at (434)293-4562 or email me at [email protected].

In the case of Bokassa v. Bokassa, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the trial court did not err when it ordered father to pay mother $1,000.00 in child support.  Mother and father never married, have two children, and share physical custody of the children. Mother filed a request for child support. The juvenile and domestic relations district court entered an order requiring father to pay mother child support, and father appealed to the circuit court. On November 19, 2012, the circuit court held a hearing on the matter. According to the written statement of facts, mother testified she was not employed and received $1,000 per month in child support from father. According to the written statement of facts, the circuit court determined father’s gross income, gave father credit for support payments for a child from another relationship, and gave father credit for the health insurance he pays for the children.According to the final order, the circuit court considered all the factors in Code § 20-108.2(D) and deviated from the shared custody guidelines due to mother’s “poverty level.” The circuit court ordered father to pay “only” $1,000 per month because that was the amount mother requested.  Based upon a review of the circumstances in this case, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in deviating from the shared custody guidelines in determining the amount of child support and in ordering father to pay mother $1,000 per month in child support.

-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Child Support Lawyer. For help with your child support questions, please contact me at (434)293-4562 or email me at [email protected] for assistance.

I spent yesterday attending the Virginia Trial Lawyer Association's 2013 Family Law Seminar titled "Everything You Wanted to Know About Child and Spousal Support".  I learned a lot that I'm eager to share with my clients!

-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer.  For help with your child and spousal support needs, please contact me at (434)293-4562 or email me at [email protected].