Stacey A. Wharam, f/k/a Stacey Austin v. Richard E. Austin, 2044162

Background

Stacey Wharam (formerly Austin) and Richard Austin divorced after contentious proceedings; a prenup existed and the court found multiple forgeries and fraudulent debts executed by wife during the marriage.
The December 31, 2014 order awarded the marital home to husband, found wife responsible for debts obtained via forged instruments, and ordered return (or accounting for sale) of numerous items of husband’s separate tangible property removed and auctioned by wife.
Wife failed to comply with return/accounting orders and was found in civil contempt in August 2014; husband later renewed a show-cause motion for noncompliance, leading to a June 16, 2016 hearing addressing contempt, valuation of sold items, and child support.
At the June hearing husband presented a Personal Inventory List valuing the missing property (~$619,000), and testified about loss of his businesses and current income (interest on a large bank balance); wife testified she earned $75,000 and had remarried.
The circuit court (bench ruling later reduced to a written order) awarded husband $1,289/month child support (retroactive adjustments), found wife in contempt, and entered a judgment requiring wife to pay $647,832.81 (restitution, mortgage reimbursement, attorney’s fees) with a monthly payment plan to purge contempt.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed most rulings but remanded to deduct the agreed-upon value of two South Sea Tahitian pearl necklaces wrongly included in husband’s inventory.

Issues

Issue	Austin's Argument (Plaintiff/Appellee)	Wharam's Argument (Defendant/Appellant)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to value missing tangible property	Husband: his Personal Inventory and testimony provided competent valuation; wife had opportunity to rebut.	Wife: inventory was unreliable, included unclear entries and an inflated painting value; auction receipts show different (lower) values.	Court affirmed: owner’s testimony admissible; wife had opportunity to present contrary evidence; valuation not plainly wrong. Remand only to subtract value of pearl necklaces.
Methodology/admissibility of inventory	Husband: owner-opinion evidence is competent on value even absent expert market knowledge.	Wife: husband’s valuations assumed pristine condition and picked highest prices; court should value by actual auction sale prices.	Court affirmed admission and reliance on inventory; owner opinion is competent; court reasonably rejected auction prices as sole measure.
Opportunity to retain counsel/continuance	Husband: proceeding was proper; wife’s counsel participated and did not request continuance.	Wife: insufficient time to retain counsel for show-cause; late disclosure of inventory (received 7 days before).	Court affirmed: no continuance requested or preserved; exhibit (or similar list) had been before the parties earlier; no abuse of discretion.
Child support amount and imputation	Husband: guideline amount appropriate; no imputation because he credibly explained loss of businesses and present income.	Wife: court speculated about husband’s future spending and bank-balance needs; should have imputed income for voluntary unemployment and deviated further downward.	Court affirmed: child support within discretion and guideline presumptively correct; wife failed to prove voluntary unemployment or necessary imputed income.
Restitution payment plan and ability to pay	Husband: monthly plan to purge contempt appropriate; court may consider household resources to set payments.	Wife: monthly payments excessive and exceed garnishment limits; court improperly considered new husband’s income.	Court affirmed: payment plan is not garnishment; court permissibly considered spouse’s household contributions (not imputing debt to new husband); payment schedule appropriate.

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Anderson, 29 Va. App. 673 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) (standard for reviewing evidence in favor of prevailing party on appeal)
Estate of Hackler v. Hackler, 44 Va. App. 51 (Va. Ct. App. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion review in equitable-distribution matters)
Haynes v. Glenn, 197 Va. 746 (Va. 1956) (owner’s opinion testimony on property value is competent)
Rappold v. Ind. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 246 Va. 10 (Va. 1993) (admission of untimely disclosed evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
McKee v. McKee, 52 Va. App. 482 (Va. Ct. App. 2008) (discretion on imputation of income; standard for reversal)
deCamp v. deCamp, 64 Va. App. 137 (Va. Ct. App. 2015) (burden on party seeking imputation of income)
Riggins v. O’Brien, 34 Va. App. 82 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) (child support determinations are discretionary; guideline presumptively correct)