Important Cases in Virginia Family Law

• Albert v. Albert (Visitation Modification)

• In 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.)
• BOARD OF EDUCATION v. EARLS (Drug testing of public school students.)
• Bomar v. Bomar (Click here for commentary)
• Bruemmer v. Bruemmer (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.)
• 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.)
• 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.
• Irwin v. Irwin - QDRO pension rights run from the date of the Final Decree, not from the date the QDRO is entered.
• Jones v. Campanelli
• Joynes v. Payne (How custody is decided.  Mother suffered from bulimia.)
• Keeling v. Keeling -
• King v. King - decision on taxation.
• Lehman v. Lehman (August, 2002) 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".
• 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.)
• McLellan v. Commonwealth of Virginia (A review of the different types of police stops.)
• 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.
• 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 (This case involves 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
• Princiotto v. Gorrell (2004) (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
• Riggins v. O'Brien (How child support arrearages are treated by the court.)
• 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)
• Sullivan v. Knick (8/27/02) involves criteria for determining if a parent may leave Virginia with a child.
• Smith v. Smith (This case discusses 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 (unpublished) -
• Walson v. Walson (This case shows why an attorney always needs to obtain a client's position in writing with the client's signature.)
• 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?) Commentary here.

• 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 WD, "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

• Virginia Circuit Court
• Domestic Relations - Divorce - Marital Fault - Valuation - Close Corporation An Isle of Wight County commissioner in chancery erred in failing to account for husband's extra-marital relationship and its impact  on the parties' 37-year marriage in recommending a property split, and the commissioner erred as well in applying a 30-percent discount (for lack of marketability and minority status) to the value of the couple's marital interest in a realty business that was a closely held corporation. Stephenson v. Stephenson, 19 Cir. C129256 (1998).
• February 19, 2002 Virginia Circuit Court Domestic Relations - Child Support Reduction - Father's Income: A father who seeks a reduction in his child-support obligation has the burden to prove his reasonable business expenses as deductions >from gross income from his closely held business, and because the father has failed to meet that burden here as to expenses other than a salary for him and possibly the $12,000 he claims he pays his present wife for accounting services, his motion to reduce child support is denied. Brahms v. Brahms, 19 Cir. C149046 (2001) . (RTF)

• Virginia Supreme Court Domestic Relations - Child Support Reduction - Parties' Agreement Although a couple's 1991 divorce decree allowed for renegotiation of the child support award as the minor children left home, the parties did not obtain court approval of any lowered amount, and the father, who reduced support payments on his own, is liable for an arrearage; with the exception of terminating a non-unitary support award upon achieving majority, specifying future changes in the amount of child support is inappropriate because it does not allow the divorce court to determine child support based on contemporary circumstances. Riggins v. O'Brien, 34 Va. App. 82, 538 S.E.2d 320 (2000). (RTF)

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.