Eduardo Ugarte, II v. Catherine Cormack Ugarte, n/k/a Catherine Anne Cormack
1096234
Va. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Catherine Cormack Ugarte (wife) and Eduardo Ugarte, II (husband) married in 2000, separated in 2018, and have three adult children.
- Wife moved out in September 2018, eventually forming the intent for permanent separation in May 2019; divorce proceedings commenced shortly after.
- The trial court awarded the wife a divorce based on one-year separation, permanent spousal support, attorney’s fees, and an equitable distribution monetary award, treating certain family transfers as loans, not gifts.
- Husband appealed, challenging findings on grounds for divorce (rehabilitative effort), the classification of brother’s funds, and the method used for spousal support calculation.
- On appeal, both parties partially prevailed: the equitable distribution and spousal support rulings were reversed and remanded; the divorce decree was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Ugarte (Husband) Argument | Cormack (Wife) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rehabilitative Effort for Marriage | Wife did not seriously attempt to save marriage via counseling. | She participated in extended counseling to try to save the marriage. | Circuit court’s finding of wife’s rehabilitative efforts was not plainly wrong; affirmed. |
| Classification of Brother’s Funds | Payments were gifts, not loans; wife is not indebted. | Some funds were gifts, some were loans as agreed/promissory notes exist. | Circuit court erred: not all funds were loans, some were gifts; reversed and remanded for reconsideration. |
| Calculation of Permanent Spousal Support | Court wrongly used pendente lite (temporary) guideline formula. | Guidelines were a starting reference; all factors considered. | Error to use pendente lite guidelines for permanent support; reversed and remanded. |
| Appellate Attorney Fees | Each requested fees for the appeal. | Each requested fees for the appeal. | Denied for both parties: partial prevail on both sides, arguments fairly debatable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolfe v. Shulan Jiang, 83 Va. App. 107 (Va. Ct. App. 2025) (standard of review—evidence viewed most favorably to prevailing party)
- Payne v. Payne, 77 Va. App. 570 (Va. Ct. App. 2023) (abuse of discretion and findings of fact standard)
- Dixon v. Dixon, 71 Va. App. 709 (Va. Ct. App. 2020) (review of law and statutory interpretation standard)
- Sfreddo v. Sfreddo, 59 Va. App. 471 (Va. Ct. App. 2012) (burden for establishing property as separate)
- Rust v. Phillips, 208 Va. 573 (Va. 1968) (clear and convincing evidence required for gifts)
- Giraldi v. Giraldi, 64 Va. App. 676 (Va. Ct. App. 2015) (spousal support awards are discretionary)