[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG AND COUNTY OF JAMES CITY. William C. Wood, Judge Pro Tempore .
L. Steven Emmert (George A. Somerville; Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C.; Troutman Sanders LLP, on briefs), for appellant.
Kenneth B. Murov (Hope C. Hutchinson; Law Office of Kenneth B. Murov, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Humphreys, McCullough and Senior Judge Haley. OPINION BY JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS.
[64 Va.App. 142] ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS, JUDGE.
Philip deCamp (" husband" ) appeals the order of the Circuit Court of the City of Williamsburg and James City County (the " circuit court" ) with respect to its decision awarding spousal support and attorney's fees to Virginia deCamp (" wife" ). Husband asserts the following six assignments of error in support of his appeal: (1) the circuit court erred by including expenses attributable to the parties' children in its award of spousal support to wife; (2) the circuit court erred in declining to impute income to wife in determining her spousal support award; (3) the circuit court erred in declining to impute income to wife no more than six months after the entry of its initial order; (4) the circuit court erred in excluding expert testimony on employment available to wife at the time of the hearing; (5) the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to credit the testimony of expert witness Robert Hornsby; and (6) the circuit court erred in awarding attorney's fees to wife.
For the following reasons, we find no error in the judgment of the circuit court and affirm its decision.
Husband and wife were married in 1990. When the parties married, husband was a Captain in the Army and wife was an Army nurse. The deCamps had three children--born in 1992, 1995, and 1999. After the birth of their first child, by mutual agreement of the parties, wife stopped working and became a homemaker and the children's primary caregiver. Wife has never had a full-time job outside the home after leaving the [64 Va.App. 143] Army in 1992. During the course of the marriage, the deCamps moved eight times due to husband's military orders. In July of 2003, the family moved to Williamsburg, Virginia where husband became an adjunct professor of military science at the College of William and Mary. In 2005, husband retired from the Army as a Lieutenant Colonel.
Upon separation, the parties drafted a separation agreement dated January 18, 2013. Regarding the items on which the parties disagreed, they agreed to refer those issues to a Judge pro tempore for a decision based on Code § 20-107.3.
The circuit court found that because husband only made approximately $7,200 per year in his position as an adjunct professor, he was voluntarily underemployed and imputed $43,000 in annual income for spousal and child support determinations. At the time of the parties' separation, husband has several other sources of significant wealth. The circuit court found that based on husband's trust income, imputed trust income, imputed voluntary underemployment income, disability pay, and retirement pay, his gross monthly income for the purposes of calculating child and spousal support was $31,219. The circuit court refused to impute any income to wife on the basis that husband failed to present any evidence of a present job and salary amount available to wife.
Having considered the statutory factors pursuant to Code § 20-107.1(E), the circuit court ordered husband to pay wife $7,000 per month, beginning on April 1, 2014 and continuing until either party dies or wife remarries or cohabits with another person for more than a year. At the parties' joint request, the circuit court awarded wife child support pursuant to the statutory guidelines in the amount of $734 per month.
A. Children's Expenses and Spousal Support Award
Husband first argues that the circuit court erred by " including expenses attributable to the parties' children in its award of spousal support to Wife, in addition to child support in the amount of $734 per month for the two minor children award [64 Va.App. 144] pursuant to Code 20-108.2, and by failing to assign the burden of proof on that issue to Wife as the party seeking spousal support." Parsing out this compound assignment of error, we presume husband essentially argues that the circuit court's error is twofold: (1) it erred by failing to place the burden of proving separate spousal needs on the party seeking it, in this case wife; and (2) it erred again by failing to
exclude the children's expenses from wife's spousal support award. In support of his argument, husband relies on this Court's decision in Robbins v. Robbins,48 Va.App. 466, 632 S.E.2d 615 (2006), as setting forth the " controlling rules of law" applicable to this issue. Despite husband's arguments to the contrary, we find that the circuit ...