Raymond F. Kuzemchak v. Ellen L. Kuzemchak, 0230212

Parties married in 1979 and divorced in 2013; the divorce decree incorporated a property settlement requiring husband to pay $3,250/month plus 25% of commissions; support was modifiable.
Husband (age 66) was laid off in June 2020, received a severance check (~$34,000), began receiving Social Security (~$3,043/month), and had savings, an IRA, and annuities but took no distributions.
Husband moved to terminate or amend spousal support; wife earned part-time wages and Social Security and relied on support; she sought a reduction to $2,000/month.
At the January 4, 2021 hearing the trial court found retirement to be a material change but highlighted husband’s decision not to seek work and awarded wife $1,250/month.
The court orally stated it had considered Code §§ 20-107.1 and 20-109 factors and offered to elaborate on the record; husband’s counsel declined the offer and later submitted an order stating the factors were considered.
On appeal husband argued the court failed to make written findings required by Code § 20-109(G) and failed to give proper weight to § 20-109(F) factors; the Court of Appeals held both claims waived and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial court failed to make written findings as required by Code § 20-109(G)	Husband: court did not identify which statutory factors it relied on in writing	Wife: court considered the factors; moreover, husband declined the court’s offer to state them on the record and confirmed in the proposed order that factors were considered	Waived — husband invited the error by declining the court’s offer to recite findings on the record and then accepting an order stating the factors were considered; affirmed
Court failed to give appropriate weight to Code § 20-109(F) factors after husband reached retirement age	Husband: court did not properly consider or weight the § 20-109(F) factors in light of his retirement	Wife: husband refused the court’s on-the-record explanation and thus waived the complaint	Waived — court would not review the claim because husband invited the error; affirmed

Nielsen v. Nielsen, 73 Va. App. 370 (2021) (standard of review: appellate deference to trial court spousal-support determinations)
Robinson v. Robinson, 50 Va. App. 189 (2007) (trial court must make written findings when statute requires them)
Cleary v. Cleary, 63 Va. App. 364 (2014) (oral bench rulings transcribed in the record can satisfy written-findings requirement)
Pilati v. Pilati, 59 Va. App. 176 (2011) (trial court need not quantify weight given to each statutory factor)
McBride v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 526 (2004) (appellate courts do not notice invited error)
Rowe v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 495 (2009) (party may not claim error that it invited at trial)
Cangiano v. LSH Bldg. Co., 271 Va. 171 (2006) (a party cannot invite error and then benefit from it)