Gregory Allen Pence v. Liza Marie Pence
1591154
| Va. Ct. App. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Husband and wife married June 9, 2001; three children: KM, GA, KA.
- PQH built/renovated homes; wife initially assisted; wife had substantial separate trust funds.
- Spouse’s marriage deteriorated around 2012; affair discovered November 2013; divorce decree September 4, 2015, on adultery grounds.
- Trial court issued equitable distribution order after hearing; awarded most PQH assets to husband, shared liability.
- Trial court denied spousal and child support, and denied attorney’s fees; appeals followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the distribution punitive and fault-based? | Wife argues 102% asset split and use of adultery to punish. | Court allowed consideration of fault but not punitive; distribution supported by contributions. | Not punitive; within statutory discretion. |
| Did court improperly consider husband’s needs in distribution? | Needs evidence supported giving 29th Street to husband to avoid alimony. | Need and economic circumstances may inform distribution under Code § 20-107.3(E). | No improper consideration of need; within discretion. |
| Was value/assignment of 29th Street proper and was lien treated correctly? | Argument that 29th Street valuation was missing and improper lien allocation. | Property treated as marital; award justified by use as collateral; debt allocated equity. | No reversible error; lien allocation affirmed. |
| Did trial court err in dissipation/$45,000 withdrawal from PQH account? | Funds no longer existed; no waste finding; no alternate valuation date sought. | Dissipation proven; wife failed to prove proper use; court may remedy via reimbursement. | Court correctly ordered half reimbursement. |
| Should husband’s IRA be classified/distributed and should alternate valuation date be ruled? | IRA existed; valuation/date dispute; court failed to rule on it. | IRA not properly classified; funds used for family; no valuation date ruling. | Remand to classify/valarate IRA; rule on alternate valuation date. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 20 Va. App. 522, 458 S.E.2d 323 (Va. App. 1995) (codes allow adverse effect of affair to justify unequal distribution)
- Lightburn v. Lightburn, 22 Va. App. 612, 472 S.E.2d 281 (Va. App. 1996) (no presumption of equal distribution; factors govern)
- Dietz v. Dietz, 17 Va. App. 203, 436 S.E.2d 463 (Va. App. 1993) (marital vs separate property; commingling rules)
- Bowers v. Bowers, 4 Va. App. 610, 359 S.E.2d 546 (Va. App. 1987) (court must classify/valorize property; not arbitrary)
- Papuchis v. Papuchis, 2 Va. App. 130, 341 S.E.2d 829 (Va. App. 1986) (equitable distribution framework; no automatic equal split)
- McDavid v. McDavid, 19 Va. App. 406, 451 S.E.2d 713 (Va. App. 1994) (harmless error standard in distribution rulings)
- Von Raab v. Von Raab, 26 Va. App. 239, 494 S.E.2d 156 (Va. App. 1997) (discretion in debt division under §20-107.3)