779 S.E.2d 236
Va. Ct. App.2015Background
- Michael H. P. Murphy (father) and Corie A. Murphy (mother) divorced in 2013; their decree incorporated (but did not merge) a marital settlement agreement. They have two minor sons; father had primary physical custody.
- At divorce mother earned roughly $140,000–$170,000 (large commission component) with long hours; she later voluntarily took a job with traditional/flexible hours and work-from-home ability, reducing her salary to about $108,000–$110,000.
- The Agreement anticipated a job change and treated a new position as a material change of circumstances for custody modification purposes.
- Mother petitioned to modify custody and child support in 2014; the trial court adjusted custody (awarded joint physical custody) and reduced mother’s child support obligation to reflect her $108,000 salary without imputing her prior higher earnings.
- Father appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by failing to impute $170,000 to mother as voluntary under‑employment.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding imputation is discretionary and the trial court permissibly considered the good‑faith and reasonableness of mother’s employment decision and the children’s interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not imputing mother’s prior $170,000 income after she took lower‑paying job | Father: mother is voluntarily under‑employed; court must impute income based on prior earnings | Mother: job change was reasonable and in children’s interests; court should use current salary absent findings justifying imputation | Court: No abuse of discretion. Imputation is not mandatory; trial court may decline to impute and must consider good faith/reasonableness and children’s interests |
| Whether prior Virginia cases require mandatory imputation when a parent voluntarily reduces earnings | Father: prior lines of cases impose mandatory imputation in voluntary under‑employment situations | Mother: 2006 statutory amendment requires evaluation of good faith/reasonableness; prior mandatory language conflicts with statute and discretion | Court: Clarifies that mandatory imputation rule is incorrect post‑2006 amendment; imputation is discretionary and must account for good faith and best interests of children |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamel v. Hamel, 18 Va. App. 10, 441 S.E.2d 221 (discussed as origin of "mandatory imputation" language)
- Brody v. Brody, 16 Va. App. 647, 432 S.E.2d 20 (addresses burden of proof and imputation in voluntary unemployment contexts)
- Antonelli v. Antonelli, 242 Va. 152, 409 S.E.2d 117 (Supreme Court affirmed discretionary imputation based on risk assumed by parent)
- Bennett v. Va. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 22 Va. App. 684, 472 S.E.2d 668 (explains discretion to impute and factual limits to imputation)
- Broadhead v. Broadhead, 51 Va. App. 170, 655 S.E.2d 748 (reiterated pre‑2006 line that was thought to mandate imputation; court here narrows that view)