David Kenneth Giraldi v. Eva Maria Giraldi
64 Va. App. 676
Va. Ct. App.2015Background
- Parties: David Kenneth Giraldi (husband) and Eva Maria Giraldi (wife); married 1999, separated May 2012; decree of divorce (adultery ground) entered Aug 11, 2014.
- Wife admitted and corroborated an extramarital affair in 2011; court repeatedly described wife’s conduct as "inexcusable" and "reprehensible."
- Financial snapshot at trial: husband earned about $16,432/month (salary, retirement, disability); wife earned about $3,369/month as a teacher and had future pension eligibility.
- Circuit court granted each party a six-year-plus reservation of spousal support; court stated denying a reservation to wife would be a "manifest injustice" and acknowledged uncertainty about the parties’ futures.
- Husband appealed, arguing the circuit court erred by awarding a reservation of spousal support to an adulterous spouse without clear and convincing findings required by Code § 20-107.1(B).
Issues
| Issue | Giraldi (Husband) Argument | Giraldi (Wife) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly invoked the manifest-injustice exception to Code § 20-107.1(B) to reserve spousal support for an adulterous spouse | The court failed to require wife to prove manifest injustice by clear and convincing evidence and failed to base any finding on the two statutory factors (respective fault and relative economic circumstances) | Wife prevailed below; court implied reservation was necessary given uncertain future; urged discretion to reserve support | Reversed: court abused discretion as it made no clear-and-convincing finding nor particularized factual findings on the two statutory factors; speculative reasoning insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Chretien v. Chretien, 53 Va. App. 200, 670 S.E.2d 45 (Va. Ct. App.) (standard for viewing evidence on appeal to favor prevailing party below)
- Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 578 S.E.2d 833 (Va. Ct. App.) (manifest-injustice exception must be based upon respective fault and relative economic circumstances)
- Barnes v. Barnes, 16 Va. App. 98, 428 S.E.2d 294 (Va. Ct. App.) (fault during marriage includes conduct affecting the marriage, not limited to statutory divorce grounds)
- Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833, 667 S.E.2d 857 (Va. Ct. App.) (spousal-support determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 661 S.E.2d 415 (Va.) (abuse of discretion includes decisions guided by erroneous legal conclusions)
- Seemann v. Seemann, 233 Va. 290, 355 S.E.2d 884 (Va.) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Pilati v. Pilati, 59 Va. App. 176, 717 S.E.2d 807 (Va. Ct. App.) (no broad common-law duty for trial courts to detail findings absent statutory requirement)