Stanley Hubbard v. Cyrenne Hubbard
0197172
| Va. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Husband and wife divorced in 2008; divorce decree awarded wife $2,500/month spousal support effective Nov. 1, 2007.
- Husband filed to modify spousal support in the JDR court in Sept. 2015; JDR denied and husband appealed to the Chesterfield circuit court.
- Circuit court denied the Motion to Amend Spousal Support in a Dec. 2, 2016 letter opinion and denied reconsideration Jan. 31, 2017; husband appealed.
- Husband argued (1) the court should infer his continued ability to pay because he produced no evidence of inability, and (2) the passage of nine years and maturation/emancipation of children materially reduced wife’s need for support.
- Circuit court found the only significant change was the children being nine years older but concluded husband failed to prove either a material change warranting modification or evidence on wife’s needs and husband’s ability to pay.
- Appeal affirmed: appellate court held husband bore the burden to prove a material change affecting wife’s need or husband’s ability to pay and failed to meet that burden; no inference compelled from his lack of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's (Respondent) Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should infer husband’s continuing ability to pay from his failure to present evidence of inability | Husband: lack of evidence of inability permits inference he can still pay | Respondent: no such inference should be drawn; moving party must prove change and ability to pay | Court: No. Moving party must prove material change and ability to pay; no mandatory favorable inference from absence of contrary evidence |
| Whether passage of time/children maturing is a material change warranting reduction of spousal support | Husband: children older and one emancipated -> wife needs less support; wife can reenter workforce | Respondent: mere passage of time insufficient without evidence of reduced need or husband’s inability | Court: Passage of time alone does not require modification; husband failed to prove the change warranted modification |
| Burden of proof for modification | Husband: (argued alternatively) he should not bear burden to prove wife’s need | Respondent: moving party must prove material change and that it warrants modification | Court: Moving party (husband) bears burden to prove both material change and that it justifies modification |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in weighing evidence and applying statutory factors | Husband: trial court erred by not drawing inferences and by not crediting change in circumstances | Respondent: trial court appropriately weighed limited evidence and exercised discretion | Court: No abuse of discretion; findings supported by record and appellate court will not reweigh ore tenus findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Street v. Street, 25 Va. App. 380 (modification requires proof of material change and that it warrants modification)
- Moreno v. Moreno, 24 Va. App. 190 (material change must affect dependent spouse’s needs or supporting spouse’s ability to pay)
- Driscoll v. Hunter, 59 Va. App. 22 (ability to pay is the crucial question once material change shown)
- Furr v. Furr, 13 Va. App. 479 (appellate deference to ore tenus findings; entitlement to maintenance consistent with marital standard of living subject to ability to pay)
- Neeley v. Johnson, 215 Va. 565 (discusses inferences from nonavailability of material witness; does not mandate favorable inference for moving party here)
- Srinivasan v. Srinivasan, 10 Va. App. 728 (supported spouse has obligation to earn as much as reasonably possible to reduce support need)
- Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 8 Va. App. 601 (modification standard requiring material change)