Timothy P. Griffin v. Angelica Tiffany Griffin, 1260213

Background

Timothy and Angelica Griffin married in 2010, separated in 2013, signed a property settlement agreement (PSA) in 2015 that reserved Wife’s right to petition for spousal support, and divorced in 2017; the divorce decree incorporated the PSA and remanded custody, visitation, and support matters to the JDR court.
A second child was born after the PSA; in 2020 Wife petitioned the JDR court for custody, child support, and spousal support under the PSA reservation.
The JDR court awarded spousal support; Husband appealed to the circuit court, which held a trial de novo and awarded Wife $1,100/month spousal support until December 2026, child support, and $10,000 in attorney fees.
Husband appealed to the Court of Appeals raising three assignments of error: (1) JDR court lacked jurisdiction to enter a spousal-support order; (2) the PSA precluded an award of attorney fees; and (3) the duration of spousal support exceeded half the marriage in violation of Code §20-107.1(D).
The Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) the circuit court validly transferred spousal-support determination to the JDR court under Code §20-79(c); (2) the PSA did not bar a court-awarded fee where the PSA was not comprehensive on fee shifting and issues (including matters relating to the child born after the PSA) were not contemplated; (3) §20-107.1(D)’s presumption governs the reservation period, not a statutory cap on the duration of a spousal-support award; remanded to determine appellate attorney fees.

Issues

Issue	Griffin's Argument	Wife's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction: Could the JDR court determine spousal support after the circuit court’s divorce decree remanded support matters?	The circuit court could only transfer enforcement of an existing spousal-support order and thus JDR lacked authority to set support.	The circuit court validly transferred the matter under Code §20-79(c); remand authorized JDR to determine support.	Affirmed: §20-79(c) permitted the circuit court to transfer determination/enforcement of spousal support to the JDR court; JDR acted within authority.
Attorney fees: Did the PSA preclude an award of fees to Wife?	The PSA required each party to pay their own fees in negotiating the PSA and for the divorce, implying no later fee shifting.	The PSA was silent as to fee shifting for later litigation and was not comprehensive; court may award fees for matters not addressed (e.g., post-PSA child, spousal-support litigation).	Affirmed: PSA did not bar fee awards; circuit court had discretion to award reasonable fees for issues not addressed by the PSA.
Duration of support: Does Code §20-107.1(D) limit spousal support to 50% of marriage length?	§20-107.1(D) creates a rebuttable presumption that support duration cannot exceed 50% of the marriage.	The statute’s presumption governs the reservation period (how long a reservation of the right to seek support remains open), not the duration of an actual award; trial court decides award duration.	Rejected Husband’s reading: presumption applies to reservation, not a statutory cap on award duration; trial court has discretion over duration.
Appellate attorney fees: Should Wife receive fees on appeal?	Husband opposed fee award.	Wife requested appellate fees; argued some assignments were frivolous.	Partially granted: Wife entitled to appellate fees for defending assignments that were “not fairly debatable” (first and third); remanded to determine amount.

Key Cases Cited

Lewis v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 454 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Linton v. Linton, 63 Va. App. 495 (apply plain language of statute unless ambiguous)
Boynton v. Kilgore, 271 Va. 220 (statutory interpretation principles)
Jones v. Gates, 68 Va. App. 100 (de novo review of PSA interpretation)
Southerland v. Estate of Southerland, 249 Va. 584 (PSA treated as contract)
Layne v. Henderson, 232 Va. 332 (contract construction rules for PSAs)
Rutledge v. Rutledge, 45 Va. App. 56 (comprehensive PSA can limit later fee awards)
Sanford v. Sanford, 19 Va. App. 241 (court may act on matters parties did not address in PSA)
Friedman v. Smith, 68 Va. App. 529 (standard for awarding appellate attorney fees)
Brandau v. Brandau, 52 Va. App. 632 (domestic-relations appeals: frivolous-appeal fee standard)
Byrd v. Byrd, 232 Va. 115 (definition of frivolous appeals)
Livingston v. Virginia State Bar, 286 Va. 1 (alternative definition of "frivolous")