Recent Cases in Virginia Family Law

• Albert v. Albert - visitation modification
• Bchara v. Bchara - a wife is granted a divorce while still living under the same roof as her husband.
• Bader v. Kramer - Hague Convention Case
• Bazzle v. Bazzle - Result of agreement not incorporated in final decree. Consequence of over-paying support.
• Benzine v. Benzine - A decision without the statutorily required reference to the criteria that were considered and those upon which the opinion based. Here we have a trial judge making the same mistake as appellant’s counsel made in Parks v. Parks, Record No. 1991-07-1 (Va. Ct. App., September 23, 2008). In both instances, the scrivener omitted the necessary statement of a major premise and minor premise leading to a bare conclusion.
• Bomar v. Bomar (Click here for commentary.)
• Brandau v. Brandau (Click here for commentary.)
• Bruemmer v. Bruemmer (Click here for commentary)
• Burke v. Burke - In the context of a property settlement agreement with no children, is a contractual waiver of the right to appeal a court decision valid and binding? (Click here for commentary.)
• Crawley v. Ford (Difference between statements and proffers.)
• D'Ambrosio v. D'Ambrosio (Click here for commentary)
• Driskill v. Driskill (Voluntary under-employment.)
• Foster v. Foster - (Click here for commentary.)
• Fowlkes v. Fowlkes (Husband and wife build an addition on wife's separate property using only the separate funds of each party. Click here for commentary.)
• Gilliam v. McCrady - division of debt after divorce; debt accrued during marriage is shared unless original purpose was separate
• Goodhand v. Kildoo (Parent relocation to Arizona approved.)
• Estate of Hackler v. Hackler (There cannot be contempt, show cause or fines for disobeying a support order after you die.)
• Hagwood v. Newton, Bellsouth, et al illustrates premarital agreements and spousal rights.
• Harris v. Harris
• Irwin v. Irwin - QDRO pension rights run from the date of the Final Decree, not from the date the QDRO is entered.
• Joynes v. Payne (How custody is decided. Mother suffered from bulimia.)
• Judd v. Judd - The required 30-day statutory notice of intent to relocate may be provided far in advance even if the move does not occur for months and the notice includes no new residence address, according to the decision.
• Keeling v. Keeling
• King v. King - decision on taxation.
• Lehman v. Lehman involves a mom who traded her rights to part of dad's pension for his right to child support. Dad later went to court and got the child support anyway. Mom complained to the court that dad had violated their agreement, and therefore she should be restored her right to share in his pension. The Court of Appeals said "no".
• Lewis v. Lewis - division of pension and assets after childless divorce
• M. Morgan Cherry & Associates, Ltd. v Cherry (When support payor owns a majority of the stock in his employer, he cannot reduce his support because his employer reduces his income.)
• McIlwain v. McIlwain (Click here for commentary.)
• McNamara v. McNamara
• Miederhoff v. Miederhoff illustrates a problem when oral contracts are made regarding child support.
• Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins - On November 28, 2006, the Court of Appeals of Virginia unanimously accepted a Vermont Supreme Court decision granting parental rights to two women over the same child. Rights to custody and visitation were determined by Vermont court when Vermont court had jurisdiction.
• Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins II - A second appeal raises the question, "Was the first Virginia Court of Appeals decision the 'law of the case'?" (Click here for commentary.)
• Millner v. Millner - treatment of separate property under a premarital agreement, and the right to a reservation of spousal support.
• Mullin v. Mullin (Click here for commentary)
• O'Hara v. Vuturo - a conflict in the definition of cohabitation between the VA Code and a separation agreement, for purposes of terminating alimony; the separation agreement prevails Click here for further comments.)
• O'Rourke v. O'Rourke - Visitation Rights of Non-Biological Parent
• Parks v. Parks - The appeal contains no legal arguments, meaning that it fails to reference any case law, rules or statutes that were allegedly misinterpreted or ignored by the trial judge. Not one of the grounds for appeal included any “legal authority” for the Court of Appeals to change the Circuit Court decision. That’s 0-for-3. Even more astounding than the statistic is the fact that appellant used a lawyer.
• Princiotto v. Gorrell - if a child support recipient is financially irresponsible, it may be permissible to pay a child's expenses directly.
• Porter v. Porter - what fault need be proven in applying the manifest injustice test of Code §20-107.1?
• Prizzia v. Prizzia (Click here for commentary)
• Rahnema v. Rahnema
• Ranney v. Ranney
• Robinson v. Robinson - three-year blended marriage; wife loses because of failure to prove gift, significant effort, or substantial contribution to enhancement of marital property. According to Mr. Long, "She saved not wisely, but too well."
• Rutledge v. Rutledge - attorney fees awarded for PSA modification if allowed by PSA, but not otherwise.
• Schwartz v. Schwartz (Click here for commentary)
• Stacy v. Stacy (Click here for commentary.)
• Steakley v. Steakley
• Sullivan v. Knick involves criteria for determining if a parent may leave Virginia with a child.
• Smith v. Smith - how an ambiguous pre-marital agreement is enforced at time of divorce; reinforces the need to be sure that provisions are clear
• Valder v. Valder
• Versprille v. Versprille
• Weise v. Weise - was the husband's separate investment traceable back to his separate funds despite the refinances and 50/50 payout of some cash, or did his money become marital property? (Click here for commentary.)

Divorce and Remarriage Study

The Federal Government's Department of Health & Human Services released an important new study on divorce & remarriage in the United States, in July 2002. The report analyses data from the National Survey of Family Growth. The report is Bramlett MD and Mosher MD, "Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States." National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23 (22).2002. We provide the text of the report here (32 pages in PDF). The citation is DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2002-1998.

Other Recent Opinions

• US District Court - Virginia - Sloane v. Equifax Information Services LLC - identity theft fallout (commentary)
• US District Court - Illinois - Heriot v. Byrne - electronic discovery
• US Supreme Court - BOARD OF EDUCATION v. EARLS (Drug testing of public school students.)
• US Supreme Court - CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries - discrimination case
• US Supreme Court - Pearson v. Callahan - unreasonable search and seizure

Can my spouse get a share of my personal injury proceeds?

Virginia Code § 20-107.3 H states as follows:

In addition to the monetary award made pursuant to subsection D, and upon consideration of the factors set forth in subsection E, the court may direct payment of a percentage of the marital share of any personal injury or workers' compensation recovery of either party, whether such recovery is payable in a lump sum or over a period of time. However, the court shall only direct that payment be made as such recovery is payable, whether by settlement, jury award, court award, or otherwise. "Marital share" means that part of the total personal injury or workers' compensation recovery attributable to lost wages or medical expenses to the extent not covered by health insurance accruing during the marriage and before the last separation of the parties, if at such time or thereafter at least one of the parties intended that the separation be permanent.