Philip deCamp v. Virginia deCamp
64 Va. App. 137
| Va. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Philip and Virginia deCamp married in 1990, had three children, and Virginia stopped full‑time work after 1992 to be a homemaker/caregiver. Husband later retired from the Army and had significant other income sources.
- The parties signed a separation agreement (Jan. 18, 2013) and submitted disputed issues to a judge pro tempore under Va. Code § 20‑107.3.
- The circuit court imputed substantial income to husband (including trust, retirement, and imputed underemployment income) and calculated gross monthly income of $31,219 for support determinations.
- The court declined to impute income to wife, finding husband failed to prove present job opportunities or a reliable earning projection for her, given her limited recent work history and physical limitations.
- The court awarded wife $7,000/month spousal support and child support under guidelines ($734/month), excluded post‑trial supplemental job listings from husband’s expert for violating the scheduling order, and gave no weight to husband’s real‑estate expert testimony.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the award, held the exclusion of late expert material was proper, upheld the refusal to impute income to wife, and remanded only to determine appellate attorney’s fees for wife (excluding husband’s first assignment of error).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spousal award improperly included children’s expenses | deCamp (husband): trial court included child‑related expenses in spousal award and should have required wife to prove separate spousal needs | Wife: her final expense statement listed only her individual expenses; court properly adjusted/divided indivisible items | Court: No abuse. Expenses indivisible or trivial need not be segregated; court reduced divisible items when appropriate and wife met burden of showing individual needs (Robbins dicta adopted) |
| Admissibility of updated nursing‑job report (Gray Broughton) | deCamp: updated report reflected current job market and should be admitted | Wife: supplemental report violated pretrial scheduling order and prejudiced her after she rested | Court: Exclusion proper. Pretrial schedule exists to prevent surprise; late disclosure unfair because wife had presented full case earlier |
| Whether to impute income to wife at trial or within 6 months | deCamp: wife is voluntarily unemployed; evidence shows nursing jobs available and court should impute income (or delay impute 6 months) | Wife: husband failed to prove present, specific job opportunities or quantifiable income to support imputation | Court: No abuse. Imputation requires proof enabling a reasonable projection of income; husband failed to present evidence of available jobs/pay; delayed imputation also denied for lack of new evidence |
| Weight of husband’s real‑estate expert (Robert Hornsby) | deCamp: Hornsby established available housing and costs appropriate for wife | Wife: Hornsby’s opinions stemmed solely from parameters provided by husband and lacked probative value tied to statutory factors | Court: Admitted but accorded no weight. Credibility/weight of expert is for factfinder; Hornsby’s testimony did not assist on ultimate statutory issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Robbins v. Robbins, 48 Va. App. 466, 632 S.E.2d 615 (Va. Ct. App.) (spousal support must be separate from child support; dicta recognizes indivisible or trivial expenses need not be segregated)
- Hinkley v. Koehler, 269 Va. 82, 606 S.E.2d 803 (Va. 2005) (trial court’s evidentiary discretion reviewed for abuse)
- Little v. Cooke, 274 Va. 697, 652 S.E.2d 129 (Va. 2007) (purpose of discovery rules is to prevent surprise and promote fair resolution)
- McKee v. McKee, 52 Va. App. 482, 664 S.E.2d 505 (Va. Ct. App.) (imputation of income is discretionary; party seeking imputation must enable reasonable income projection)
- Brandau v. Brandau, 52 Va. App. 632, 666 S.E.2d 532 (Va. Ct. App.) (no automatic imputation; stay‑at‑home spouse need not begin work immediately post‑divorce)
- John v. Im, 263 Va. 315, 559 S.E.2d 694 (Va. 2002) (expert testimony admissible if it assists factfinder; admission is trial court discretion)