Christian A. Von Hassell v. Elizabeth Von Hassell, 0414164

Background

Parties married in 1993; husband founded Repton (a finance business) in 1989 and owned ~97.5% at marriage; wife left workforce after first child and the family relied primarily on Repton income.
Parties separated in February 2014; wife sued for divorce, support, equitable distribution, and fees; pendente lite order required husband to pay spousal and child support and awarded attorney fees.
Trial court (after an evidentiary hearing) classified marital estate to include the NY co-op, three vehicles, and husband’s 97.5% interest in Repton; treated personal property held by each party as that party’s separate property.
Trial court found insufficient evidence to value Repton’s assets/goodwill but nevertheless awarded husband sole ownership of Repton and allocated all marital debt (~$249,000) to husband to “compensate” wife for her interest.
Court fixed wife’s income at $85,000 and husband’s income by averaging reported distributions from Repton (rejecting many claimed business deductions), set spousal support at $3,000/month, found husband in contempt for pendente lite arrears, and ordered jail if arrearage unpaid but initially stated statutory limitation did not apply.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it reversed the personal-property ruling as to items wife possessed, remanded valuation/distribution of Repton for clarification, remanded spousal support in light of equitable-distribution remand, and directed limited correction of the contempt order to reflect the 12-month statutory cap.

Issues

Issue	Husband's Argument	Wife's Argument	Held
Classification of personal property in wife’s possession	Items husband acquired pre-marriage are his separate property and must be returned	Items are separate in current possession (or belong to children/trust) and court may let each keep what they possess	Reversed: trial court erred treating contested items in wife’s possession as her separate property; remand to adjudicate each item individually to determine whether still husband’s separate property or was divested/placed in trust
Classification, valuation, and distribution of Repton	Repton was pre-marital/separate; trial court erred classifying it marital and assigning debt to husband to “compensate” wife	Repton is marital to the extent goodwill attributable to marital effort; wife sought distribution but presented limited valuation evidence	Issue not preserved re: initial classification (waived). Trial court erred or reached irreconcilable findings on valuation vs compensation; remanded to determine whether Repton has an ascertainable value and, if so, specify amount allocated to wife (or state no distributable value)
Calculation of husband’s income for spousal support (business expense deductions)	Court ignored legitimate, reasonable business expense deductions; income overstated, ability to pay support misstated	Husband’s expense claims were unsupported/double-counted; court properly discredited them	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in rejecting husband’s expense claims as incredible and excluding them from income; spousal support remanded for re-evaluation if equitable-distribution outcomes change income/needs
Contempt order and jail term (future/imprisonment length/due process)	Future conditional jail term violates due process and indefinite confinement exceeds 12-month statutory limit	Husband had full due process at contempt hearing; conditional confinement is lawful civil contempt but must conform to statutory cap	In part affirmed and remanded: due process was satisfied; but trial court erred in stating the statutory 12-month limit did not apply — remand to modify order to state confinement "until paid but in no event exceed twelve months."

Key Cases Cited

Niblett v. Niblett, 65 Va. App. 616, 779 S.E.2d 839 (Va. Ct. App. 2015) (appellate-review standard for factual findings — view evidence in favor of prevailing party below)
Wiencko v. Takayama, 62 Va. App. 217, 745 S.E.2d 168 (Va. Ct. App. 2013) (standard for reviewing equitable distribution awards)
Marion v. Marion, 11 Va. App. 659, 401 S.E.2d 432 (Va. Ct. App. 1991) (three-stage process: classify, value, distribute marital property)
Frazer v. Frazer, 23 Va. App. 358, 477 S.E.2d 290 (Va. Ct. App. 1996) (reasonable business expenses deductible when computing income for support)
Robinson v. Robinson, 46 Va. App. 652, 621 S.E.2d 147 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (need to re-examine spousal support when equitable-distribution award is modified on remand)
Street v. Street, 24 Va. App. 14, 480 S.E.2d 118 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (due process protections required before contempt punishment for failure to pay support)