Laura McGahey Roberts White v. David Carlton Wright
737 S.E.2d 519
Va. Ct. App.2013Background
- Married in August 1986 with three daughters; parties separated July 2008 in Richmond; husband is Hunton & Williams equity partner leading the Capital Real Estate Finance Group; trial court valued husband’s law practice at Hunton & Williams at about $1.492M (wife’s expert) vs $503K (husband’s expert); husband has three Hunton & Williams retirement accounts, SRP is pertinent; trial court initially ruled SRP not marital property but later found it marital and awarded wife 25% of its value under a deferred distribution method; court awarded wife $10,000 monthly spousal support for four years with a reservation of future rights; wife argued for using separation date as alternate valuation date for two accounts; husband argued post-separation expenditures of marital funds were proper under dissipation doctrine; both parties appeal and appellate fees sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reservation of spousal support duration | Husband argues reservation invalid/no fixed duration | Wife seeks reservation per Code §20-107.1(D) with presumption 11-year duration | Reservation reversed for lack of identified duration; remanded for explicit 50% marriage-to-separation period duration. |
| SRP marital share calculation | Husband argues SRP value entirely nonmarital until vesting | SRP contains marital value when and if vesting occurs; award of 25% of total value improper | Remand to limit SRP award to marital share; apply 50% of marital share cap and adjust to reflect marital portion only. |
| Valuation method for SRP goodwill and intrinsic value | Husband challenges bottom-up valuation; claims lack of appropriate data | Court properly used bottom-up method; Raymond’s approach better reflects intrinsic value | Court’s valuation affirmed as credible; no plain error in method; goodwill properly treated as institutional marital value. |
| Valuation date for Ameritrade/Bank of America accounts | Wife argues for separation-date or post-separation adjustments | Court correctly valued as of evidentiary hearing date with no good cause shown for alternate date | No abuse of discretion; no dissipation found requiring alternate date. |
| Defined-duration spousal support amount/duration | Wife contends four-year term insufficient; employment prospects anew | Trial court acted within discretion given wife’s earning capacity and timeline to re-enter workforce | Defined-duration award for four years upheld as not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vissicchio v. Vissicchio, 27 Va. App. 240 (1998) (reservation of spousal support rights permissible when pleadings allow)
- Blank v. Blank, 10 Va. App. 1 (1990) (support rights available where no bar to receive spousal support)
- Bacon v. Bacon, 3 Va. App. 484 (1986) (review of spousal support and reservation decisions)
- Poliquin v. Poliquin, 12 Va. App. 676 (1991) (presumptive duration for spousal support reservations)
- Irwin v. Irwin, 47 Va. App. 287 (2005) (limits on derivative relief under 20-107.1(D))
- Mosley v. Mosley, 19 Va. App. 192 (1994) (limits on pension-type awards and marital share calculations)
- Howell v. Howell, 31 Va. App. 332 (2000) (bottom-up valuation method for professional practices; intrinsic value standard)
- Torian v. Torian, 38 Va. App. 167 (2002) (deferred distribution approach for marital shares in pensions)
- Thomas v. Thomas, 40 Va. App. 639 (2003) (valuation date and discretion in dissipation contexts)
- Clements v. Clements, 10 Va. App. 580 (1990) (dissipation post-separation; use alternate valuation date when necessary)
- Street v. Street, 25 Va. App. 380 (1997) (credibility determinations; weight of witness testimony)
- Banagan v. Banagan, 17 Va. App. 321 (1998) (special issues in retirement plans and marital property)
- Russell v. Russell, 11 Va. App. 411 (1990) (distinguishing personal vs practice goodwill in valuations)