Anthony R. Bedell v. Christina M. Muller
1618154
| Va. Ct. App. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- Parties: Anthony R. Bedell (father) and Christina M. Muller (mother); divorced, joint legal custody; mother primary physical custody of three children.
- Divorce agreement (incorporated into decree) gave mother monthly child support and time‑limited spousal support; parties expressed intent children remain in Catholic Montessori school but not binding.
- Mother sought to relocate children to California; Judge White denied that relocation in July 2015, finding improper motive and substantial impairment of father’s relationship; mother appealed that order and was ordered to pay some of father’s fees.
- Mother then obtained a job in Front Royal, Virginia (64 miles from Fairfax/Great Falls), moved there with the children, and enrolled them in a local Catholic Montessori school; father moved to enjoin this in‑state relocation.
- Judge Azcarate (hearing in Sept. 2015) denied father’s injunction: found material change (mother’s employment and impending spousal support reduction), found move in children’s best interests, mother not motivated to deny access, and relationship with father could be substantially maintained.
- On appeal, father argued (1) trial court improperly ignored law‑of‑the‑case from the California ruling, (2) mother had improper motive, (3) court failed to state Code § 20‑124.3 findings, and (4) relocation would substantially impair father’s relationship with children. Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bedell) | Defendant's Argument (Muller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Azcarate was bound by the earlier July 2015 ruling (law of the case) | July 2015 ruling should control; trial court erred by reaching a different result for Front Royal | July 2015 order involved different facts and was on appeal; law‑of‑the‑case not binding here | Waived: father failed to preserve contemporaneous objection; earlier order on appeal so not binding; no preserved error |
| Whether mother’s motive for moving was improper (intended to deny father access) | Mother’s prior California move finding shows improper motive; Front Royal move was likewise aimed at pressuring father | Move was for legitimate reasons: employment, impending spousal support reduction, affordable housing, continuity of schooling and childcare | Denied: trial court’s credibility findings supported that mother’s motive was proper; not plainly wrong |
| Whether trial court failed to set forth required findings under Code § 20‑124.3 | Judge failed to identify statutory best‑interest factors considered, so reversal required | Any omission was not raised below; court made oral findings sufficient; omission waived | Waived: father did not contemporaneously object; even on merits court made findings and error (if any) not of a kind warranting reversal |
| Whether relocation would substantially impair father’s relationship with children | 64‑mile move will substantially impair visitation frequency/quality, requiring refusal to relocate | Evidence showed father’s contact was sporadic, mother offered accommodations (driving, schedule adjustments), activities mostly weekends | Denied: record supports trial court’s conclusion that the relationship could be substantially maintained without changing visitation; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller‑Jenkins v. Miller‑Jenkins, 276 Va. 19 (2008) (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine applies within same litigation when facts are identical)
- Steinman v. Clinchfield Coal Corp., 121 Va. 611 (1917) (prior ruling binds later stages only where facts are the same)
- Kaufman v. Kaufman, 12 Va. App. 1200 (1991) (identity of facts required for law‑of‑the‑case effect)
- Va. Tree Harvesters, Inc. v. Shelton, 62 Va. App. 524 (2013) (law‑of‑the‑case applies only to final, unappealed orders)
- Cloutier v. Queen, 35 Va. App. 413 (2001) (ore tenus findings entitled to great weight)
- Piatt v. Piatt, 27 Va. App. 426 (1998) (standard of review for custody/relocation findings)
- Petry v. Petry, 41 Va. App. 782 (2003) (abuse of discretion occurs if court fails to consider statutory factors or makes plainly wrong factual findings)
- Surles v. Mayer, 48 Va. App. 146 (2006) (court may consider post‑move changes; difficulty in maintaining relationship not sole basis to deny move)
- Scinaldi v. Scinaldi, 2 Va. App. 571 (1986) (relocation analysis: benefit of relationship must be substantially maintained)
- Budnick v. Budnick, 42 Va. App. 823 (2004) (credibility and weight of evidence for factfinder at ore tenus hearing)