Yasmine S. Hamad v. Sammy N. Hamad
61 Va. App. 593
| Va. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Husband and wife married in 1982; they filed for divorce in 2009 and agreed to a no-fault divorce.
- The trial court relied on depositions and exhibits with no ore tenus testimony.
- A joint set of liquid accounts (Scottrade, Janus, Edward Jones, Peoples Advantage, EVB CD) were analyzed for equitable distribution.
- The court valued assets and allocated 60% to husband, 40% to wife after considering Code § 20-107.3 factors, including wife’s adultery and parents’ contributions.
- Wife moved for clarification; court clarified that the 60/40 split was not a clerical error and noted additional considerations guiding distribution.
- Final decree recited the earlier letter ruling and used balances from evidentiary exhibits rather than updated balances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 60/40 split was an abuse of discretion | Hamad argues misapplication of classification vs. distribution and improper factors. | Hamad contends court used speculative concerns and parental contributions improperly. | No abuse of discretion; 60/40 upheld. |
| Whether court properly considered all §20-107.3 factors | Wife claims factors were misapplied or incomplete. | Court evaluated factors and weighed them appropriately. | Factors properly considered; no reversal. |
| Valuation date for liquid assets | Current balances should be used, not older deposition figures. | Valuation based on evidence at hearing; no error updating balances. | valuation using hearing-era balances appropriate. |
| Procedural/defaulted objections improperly broadened on appeal | Appellant broadened objections beyond trial court issues. | Appellant’s sub-arguments fall within or beyond the trial objections. | Appellate review limited to trial objections; some arguments defaulted. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. White, 56 Va. App. 214, 692 S.E.2d 289 (Va. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for viewing evidence in favor of prevailing party)
- Owens v. Owens, 41 Va. App. 844, 589 S.E.2d 488 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) (discourages reliance on conflicting appellant evidence)
- Marion v. Marion, 11 Va. App. 659, 401 S.E.2d 432 (Va. Ct. App. 1991) (three-step equitable distribution: classification, valuation, distribution)
- Rahbaran v. Rahbaran, 26 Va. App. 195, 494 S.E.2d 135 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (tracing burden for separate property)
- Canavos v. Canavos, 200 Va. 861, 108 S.E.2d 359 (Va. 1959) (evidence standard; burden of proof in equity matters)
- Hoback v. Hoback, 208 Va. 432, 158 S.E.2d 113 (Va. 1967) (deposition-based decrees receive deference comparable to live testimony)
- O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 23 Va. App. 690, 479 S.E.2d 98 (Va. Ct. App. 1996) (economic partnership and contribution considerations)
- Brandau v. Brandau, 52 Va. App. 632, 666 S.E.2d 532 (Va. Ct. App. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard in distribution decisions)
- Robbins v. Robbins, 48 Va. App. 466, 632 S.E.2d 615 (Va. Ct. App. 2006) (no presumption of equal distribution; weigh factors)