840 S.E.2d 1
Va. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Parties married in 1989; husband moved out in 2017 and filed for divorce; wife filed a counter-complaint alleging desertion and cruelty.
- At trial, husband moved to strike the wife’s counter-complaint; the circuit court denied the motion.
- The circuit court granted divorce based on separation of more than one year, awarded equitable distribution (husband credited $157,250 — half the home equity) and ordered spousal support of $1,500/month for 63 months.
- The court explicitly offset the husband’s monetary equitable-distribution award against the wife’s spousal support, resulting in the defined 63‑month support term.
- Husband appealed the denial of his motion to strike and the offset; wife cross‑appealed the spousal‑support duration and sought appellate attorney’s fees.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred by denying husband’s motion to strike wife’s counter-complaint | Husband: wife’s claims (desertion, cruelty) lacked corroboration and should be struck | Wife: evidence, viewed in her favor, was sufficient at motion-to-strike stage | Affirmed: motion-to-strike standard requires viewing evidence in wife’s favor; incomplete transcript prevents fuller review but denial stands |
| Whether the court could offset husband’s equitable-distribution monetary award against wife’s spousal support (making payment contingent on future events) | Husband: offset impermissibly conditioned his monetary award on future events and delayed payment | Wife: court properly considered support in fashioning distribution (but she conceded error on offset) | Reversed: Code § 20‑107.3(D) does not authorize conditioning general monetary awards on future events; remand for reconsideration of equitable distribution and spousal support |
| Whether imposing a defined 63‑month duration on wife’s spousal support was error | Wife: defined duration was improper | Husband/Court: duration was tied to equitable-distribution credit and appropriate | Not reached on merits: court must revisit spousal support after equitable-distribution is corrected on remand |
| Whether appellate attorney’s fees and costs should be awarded to wife | Wife: seeks fees under Rule 5A:30 | Husband: opposes | Denied: appellate court exercised discretion under Rule 5A:30 and declined to award fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Parson v. Miller, 296 Va. 509 (2018) (motion‑to‑strike standard: deny only if nonmoving party proves no cause of action)
- Chaplain v. Chaplain, 54 Va. App. 762 (2009) (at motion‑to‑strike stage courts accept evidence in light most favorable to claimant)
- Fox v. Fox, 61 Va. App. 185 (2013) (statutory interpretation principles for equitable distribution)
- David v. David, 287 Va. 231 (2014) (de novo review for statutory interpretation issues)
- McGinniss v. McGinniss, 49 Va. App. 180 (2006) (retirement benefits are future‑oriented and may be conditioned on payout timing)
- Reid v. Reid, 7 Va. App. 553 (1989) (equitable distribution allocates accumulated marital wealth based on past contributions)
- Wright v. Wright, 61 Va. App. 432 (2013) (discretionary standard for awarding appellate attorney’s fees under Rule 5A:30)