CourtListener opinion 1076772

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick

ROBERT WARREN GORE
 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2308-96-3 PER CURIAM
 MAY 20, 1997
SYLVIA SWAIN GORE

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PATRICK COUNTY
 Charles M. Stone, Judge

 (Richard D. Rogers, Jr., on brief), for
 appellant.
 (Philip G. Gardner; Gardner, Gardner, Barrow &
 Sharpe, on brief), for appellee.

 Robert W. Gore (husband) appeals the final decree of divorce

and equitable distribution entered by the circuit court. Husband

contends that the trial court erred in (1) valuing the parties'

retirement benefits, (2) awarding attorney's fees to Sylvia S.

Gore (wife), (3) requiring husband to pay wife the value of a

lost engagement ring, (4) awarding wife one-half the face value

of savings bonds, and (5) awarding wife $375 in monthly spousal

support. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we

conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we

summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.
 Pensions

 Husband contends that wife's expert erred in valuing his

pension, that the present value calculation used post-separation
 *
 Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
 salary increases, that the marital share was erroneously

calculated, and that the effect of Social Security payments upon

his pension was not considered. We find these contentions to be

without merit.

 While the court's final decree calculated the present value

of husband's pension, the qualified domestic relations order

(QDRO) which the court subsequently entered did not rely upon

present value. That order calculated the marital share of

husband's pension as a fraction of the total pension, based upon

the parties' final separation date of February 1992.

Specifically, the court awarded wife a pro rata portion of the

marital share, defined as:
 one-half (1/2) of the fraction whose
 numerator is the number of months of federal,
 civilian and military service that [husband]
 . . . performed during the marriage and whose
 denominator is the total number of federal,
 civilian, and military service performed by
 the [husband]. . . .

The court found the number of months of employment during the

marriage equaled 192. The total number of months of employment

will not be established until husband's retirement, based upon

his employment starting date of May 12, 1976. Thus, while the

court's final decree referred to a present value of husband's

pension, the implementing QDRO did not rely upon the present

value calculation. Therefore, husband's challenge to the

discount rate assumption used by wife's expert in calculating the

present value is moot.

 2
 Similarly, husband's contention that the present value

calculation relied on the value of post-separation earnings is

moot. Moreover, husband's argument that the calculation of the

marital share cannot rely on any salary levels earned

post-separation is incorrect. We rejected a similar argument in

Banagan v. Banagan, 17 Va. App. 321, 324-26, 437 S.E.2d 229,

230-31 (1993).
 \It is only fair that both parties share in