Reginald Conrad Collard v. Patricia Ann Collins, 0406174

Patricia Collins filed for divorce and sought pendente lite and permanent spousal support; a consent pendente lite order (Jan 6, 2016) required Collard to pay several of Collins’s monthly expenses but stated those payments were not spousal support and had no presumptive effect.
The circuit court conducted a final divorce hearing on Oct 20, 2016; Collins proceeded pro se and presented evidence only of her income, expenses, and needs; she requested $6,500/month in spousal support.
Collard presented evidence on divorce grounds but did not present evidence of his income or financial condition; Collins likewise presented no evidence of Collard’s current ability to pay beyond the earlier pendente lite order.
The circuit court awarded Collins $2,625/month in spousal support—equal to Collard’s pendente lite payments—citing Collard’s prior payments and lack of contrary evidence that he could not continue to pay.
Collard appealed, arguing the award lacked evidentiary support of his income or ability to pay and that reliance on the pendente lite order was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether spousal support award was supported by evidence of payer's ability to pay	Collins argued she proved her needs and relied on pendente lite payments as evidence Collard could pay	Collard argued Collins failed to prove his income or present evidence of ability to pay; pendente lite payments are not presumptive	Reversed: trial court abused discretion; no evidence established Collard’s present ability to pay
Whether pendente lite payments may be used as presumptive measure of final spousal support	Collins relied on pendente lite payment amount to set final support	Collard argued pendente lite order expressly lacked presumptive effect and circumstances could change	Reversed: court erred to rely on pendente lite order; such orders have no presumptive or determinative effect for final awards
Whether different standards apply to pendente lite vs final spousal support	Collins treated pendente lite criteria as sufficient for final award	Collard emphasized Code §20-103 (pendente lite necessity) differs from Code §20-107.1 (nine-factor final analysis)	Court affirmed distinction: different considerations apply; pendente lite does not satisfy final statutory requirements
Whether appellate attorney’s fees should be awarded to appellant	Collard sought appellate fees and costs	Collins opposed fees	Denied: appellate court declined to award costs or fees under circumstances

Andrews v. Creacey, 56 Va. App. 606 (discusses requirement to consider Code §20-107.1(E) factors and state findings supporting spousal support awards)
Robbins v. Robbins, 48 Va. App. 466 (party seeking spousal support bears burden to prove facts necessary for award)
Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255 (appellate standard: review evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party; abuse of discretion standard for spousal support)
Northcutt v. Northcutt, 39 Va. App. 192 (spousal support is within trial court discretion; reversal only for clear abuse)
Weizenbaum v. Weizenbaum, 12 Va. App. 899 (explains differences between pendente lite support criteria and final support criteria)
O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 23 Va. App. 690 (appellate court is proper forum to decide appellate fee awards)