CourtListener opinion 1067998

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Clements and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Richmond, Virginia

LUTHER BRUCE BUCHANAN
 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 2244-02-2 JUDGE WILLIAM H. HODGES
 SEPTEMBER 30, 2003
BONNIE BUCHANAN

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY
 Leslie M. Osborn, Judge

 Michael J. Brickhill (Michael J. Brickhill,
 P.C., on brief), for appellant.

 Carol B. Gravitt (E. Sterling Byrd-Roberts;
 Gravitt & Gravitt, P.C., on brief), for
 appellee.

 Luther Bruce Buchanan (husband) contends on appeal that the

trial court erred: (1) in awarding Bonnie Buchanan (wife) a

divorce on the basis of constructive desertion; (2) in failing

to explain the factors upon which it based equitable

distribution of the marital property; (3) in refusing to assign

a present value to wife's Virginia Retirement System (VRS)

pension; (4) in assigning husband only 25% of wife's pension and

awarding her a monetary award of $105,000; (5) in finding as

wife's separate property a contribution of $23,000 from her

inheritance used to improve the marital home; (6) in

conditioning the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) on a

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
 specific payment of the monetary award to wife; (7) in ordering

interest to accrue on the amount of the monetary award if not

timely paid; (8) in reserving wife's right to seek spousal

support for a specified period; and (9) in barring husband's

transfer, disposition, conveyance or encumbrance of his solely

titled property until after entry of the final divorce decree.

 Pursuant to Rule 5A:21(b), wife contends that the trial

court erred in considering certain debts of husband in the

division of property.

 After reviewing the record and considering arguments of the

parties, we affirm the trial court.

 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 Husband filed a bill of complaint on March 9, 2001, seeking

a divorce. As grounds, husband alleged cruelty and constructive

desertion on the basis of an alleged assault by wife as well as

repeated incidences of verbal abuse. He sought equitable

distribution of the marital property, spousal support,

possession of the marital home, and attorney's fees and costs.

 Wife filed an answer and cross-bill. She denied any

intentional assault on husband other than in her own attempts to

defend herself against his abuse. In her cross-bill, wife

requested a divorce a mensa et thoro pursuant to Code

§ 20-91(6). She sought spousal support, equitable distribution

of the marital property, court costs and attorney's fees.

 - 2 -
 Husband denied wife's allegations and moved to dismiss the

cross-bill.

 Following extensive evidentiary hearings, the trial court

found that wife proved cruelty by husband and ordered the

marriage dissolved on that basis. The trial court distributed

the marital property in accordance with Code § 20-107.3 as set

out in the court's opinion letter dated April 18, 2002, and

Attachment A to that letter. The trial court valued the marital

property, including debts and liabilities, at $207,962.01.

 The trial court ordered husband to pay wife \a lump sum