Anthony Michael Sfreddo v. Vanessa Sfreddo
59 Va. App. 471
Va. Ct. App.2012Background
- Married in 1990; separated in 2009; husband acquired 50% interests in Triple S Termite and Pest Control and APS Investments.
- At separation, husband owned 50% of each company; Triple S mother was sole shareholder before 2004.
- In 2004 the company transferred 200 shares to husband and his brother for nominal consideration; mother’s shares were redeemed over 15 years.
- Trial court found Triple S shares were not gifts and that husband paid for them; court also valued APS Investments by its real property and bank account.
- Trial court awarded wife $690,000 monetary award and $5,000 monthly permanent spousal support; husband appeals on four issues.
- Appellate court reverses classification of Triple S stock as marital, remands spousal support issue, affirms APS valuation, and denies attorney-fee awards on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Triple S stock is marital or separate property | Sfreddo argues stock was a gift, hence separate property | Sfreddo contends gift issue was not proven corporately | Triple S stock classified as separate property; gift proven by donative intent |
| Valuation of APS Investments | Challenge to valuing APS without appraisal and credit for brother’s debt | APS valuation by intrinsic value supported; debt issue not properly before court | APS valuation affirmed; debt consideration not addressed on appeal |
| Interest income from monetary award and spousal support | Monetary award interest should reduce spousal support | Not properly addressed until ED issue resolved | Remanded for reconsideration after reversal on Triple S stock issue |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Both sides seek fees for costs on appeal | Neither side fully prevails | No attorney fees awarded on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. White, 56 Va. App. 214 (2010) (standard of review for classification of property; donative intent and evidence standard)
- Rexrode v. Rexrode, 1 Va. App. 385 (1986) (burden to rebut marital presumption; separate property from gifts)
- Stainback v. Stainback, 11 Va. App. 13 (1990) (donative gifts; equitable distribution framework)
- Hackett v. Emmett, 215 Va. 726 (1975) (nominal or sham consideration may indicate gift; delivery presumptions)
- Ott v. L&J Holdings, LLC, 275 Va. 182 (2008) (gift definition; consideration not required for a deed of gift)