Alan H. Nielsen v. Jacqueline M. Nielsen, 0037214

Alan H. Nielsen (husband) appealed the trial court’s modification of spousal support awarded to Jacqueline M. Nielsen (wife).
The trial court found a material change in circumstances and recalculated spousal support, expressly considering the Code § 20-107.1 factors, including the marital standard of living.
Husband’s sole appellate challenge was the trial court’s allowance, as an expense, of monthly payments wife made to her mother.
The trial court found those payments were a longstanding part of the couple’s marital finances and constituted part of the wife’s lifestyle established during the marriage; husband presented no evidence disputing the amount.
The court distinguished those payments from other discretionary expenses (e.g., portions of a cell-phone plan covering adult children) that were not necessary for the wife’s support.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court acted within its discretion in treating the mother-support payments as an expense for purposes of spousal support; husband’s request for appellate attorney’s fees was denied.

Issue	Husband's Argument	Wife's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by counting wife’s monthly payments to her mother as an expense when modifying spousal support	The mother-support payments should not be treated as wife’s support expense and thus should not increase spousal support	The payments were part of the marital standard of living and a legitimate need of the wife to maintain that lifestyle	Affirmed — trial court permissibly found payments were part of wife’s lifestyle and within its discretion to include them
Whether husband is entitled to appellate attorney’s fees	Husband requested fees from this appeal	Wife prevailed on appeal	Denied — wife prevailed, so fees request denied

Moreno v. Moreno, 24 Va. App. 190 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (modification of spousal support requires material change and court may modify as circumstances make proper)
Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 8 Va. App. 601 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) (burden on moving party to prove material change warrants modification)
Hollowell v. Hollowell, 6 Va. App. 417 (Va. Ct. App. 1988) (circumstances affecting spousal support are financial and economic)
Chaney v. Karabaic-Chaney, 71 Va. App. 431 (Va. Ct. App. 2020) (award of spousal support reviewed for abuse of discretion when factors of § 20-107.1 are considered)
Du v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 555 (Va. 2016) (appellate deference; reasonable jurists may reach different conclusions)
Robbins v. Robbins, 48 Va. App. 466 (Va. Ct. App. 2006) (trial court abused discretion when improperly offsetting overlapping child and spousal support items)
deCamp v. deCamp, 64 Va. App. 137 (Va. Ct. App. 2014) (trial court has flexible, commonsense role in considering parties’ estimated needs under § 20-107.1)
Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Brooks, 12 Va. App. 890 (Va. Ct. App. 1991) (appellate court does not retry facts or reweigh evidence)
Harrison v. Harrison, 58 Va. App. 90 (Va. Ct. App. 2011) (denial of appellant’s request for appellate attorney’s fees when appellee prevails)