Pamela S. Cleary v. Thomas C. Cleary
63 Va. App. 364
| Va. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parties married in 1994, separated after ~17 years; three children. Wife sought divorce; circuit court granted divorce and awarded spousal support.
- Husband worked as a financial advisor; wife had worked in pharmaceutical sales and ran an independent weight-loss business and was found able to work (expert testified she could earn $50–60k/year).
- Circuit court awarded the wife $5,000/month spousal support for a defined duration of 60 months (with customary termination events such as death, remarriage, or long-term cohabitation).
- The circuit court made detailed factual findings addressing the factors in Code § 20-107.1(E) (needs, resources, earning capacity, contributions, standard of living, health, etc.).
- Wife moved for reconsideration arguing the court failed to explain why support would end after five years; motion was summarily denied.
- Wife appealed, arguing the trial court failed to provide statutorily required written findings identifying the basis for the duration; husband defended sufficiency of findings and the five-year limit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cleary) | Defendant's Argument (Cleary) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court's written findings complied with Code § 20-107.1(F) for an award of defined duration | Trial court failed to identify the basis connecting factual findings to the five-year duration; therefore findings insufficient | Trial court’s written findings listing the §20-107.1(E) factors were sufficient; statute does not require quantifying weight for each factor | Reversed and remanded: §20-107.1(F) requires written findings that both identify relevant §(E) factors and explain the basis for the award’s nature, amount, and duration; existing order failed to connect the duration to supporting findings |
| Whether appellate court should instead order permanent (undefined-duration) support | Wife urged remand with instruction to award undefined-duration support because record cannot support five-year limit | Husband opposed; argued trial court’s discretion should stand and findings were adequate | Not reached: appellate court declined to substitute its judgment for the trial court and remanded for the trial court to make the required findings; did not decide abuse of discretion claim |
| Whether appellate attorneys’ fees should be awarded to either party | Wife sought fees for successful aspects of appeal | Husband sought fees for defending award | Denied to both parties: appeal not frivolous and record did not justify fee shifting |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilliam v. McGrady, 279 Va. 703 (2010) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo and plain-meaning rules explained)
- Conyers v. Martial Arts World of Richmond, Inc., 273 Va. 96 (2007) (rules for reading statutes as a whole and giving effect to every word)
- Pilati v. Pilati, 59 Va. App. 176 (2012) (trial courts must identify relevant §20-107.1(E) factors and resolve significant factual disputes in written findings)
- Duva v. Duva, 55 Va. App. 286 (2009) (trial court not required to quantify weight given to each statutory factor)
- Bruemmer v. Bruemmer, 46 Va. App. 205 (2005) (affirmed defined-duration award where court detailed circumstances supporting amount and duration)
- Torian v. Torian, 38 Va. App. 167 (2002) (upheld defined-duration support where court explained temporal nexus—e.g., until pension eligibility)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 50 Va. App. 189 (2007) (failure to make required written findings is reversible error)
- Benzine v. Benzine, 52 Va. App. 256 (2008) (remand for reconsideration where statutory written findings were lacking)