ROMINGER LEGAL
Virginia Legal Research & Resources - VA Legal Resources
Need Legal Help?
NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE
This opinion or court case is from the Courts of Virginia. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH
COURT REPORTERS
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
PROCESS SERVERS
DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS
EXPERT WITNESSES

 

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

 
Web Rominger Legal

Legal News - Legal Headlines

 

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA



Present:  Judges Benton, Willis and Clements


DOMINIC R. MEDURE
  MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 1597-01-3 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
          FEBRUARY 19, 2002
CLAUDIA C. MEDURE


FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG
Richard S. Miller, Judge Designate

 (Frank West Morrison; Leslie S. Phillips;  
Phillips, Morrison & Johnson, on briefs), for
appellant.  Appellant submitting on briefs.

 (John P. Grove; Frank K. Friedman; R. Lucas
Hobbs; Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, P.L.C., on
brief), for appellee.  Appellee submitting on
brief.



On appeal, Dominic Medure initially contended that the trial
court erred:  (1) in allowing Claudia Medure to litigate the issue
of a $10,000 loan repayment because under the principle of res
judicata, neither party to a final decree of divorce that divides
the marital assets is entitled to have the court revisit that
issue; and (2) in ordering Mr. Medure to remove Mrs. Medure's name
from the marital credit card accounts.  He has withdrawn the
second issue.  For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment
of the trial court.
By a letter dated January 13, 1998, Mr. Medure requested that
Mrs. Medure authorize a $10,000 loan to him from a marital account
held at Wheat First Securities to enable him to cover the payroll
at his company, Power Products.  Mr. Medure's attorney assured
Mrs. Medure's attorney that the loan would be repaid.  Mrs. Medure
approved the loan.  The parties' divorce suit was then pending.
On June 11, 1998, the trial court granted the parties a final
decree of divorce.  The final decree set forth a partial equitable
division of the parties' marital assets and debts and referred
division of other marital assets and any liens thereon to
arbitration.  The decree provided:
[Dominic R. Medure] is awarded $151,914.12
or two-thirds and [Claudia C. Medure]
$75,843.13 or one-third of the Wheat Money
Market Account . . . and any increase in
value of said account shall be shared by the
parties on the same two-thirds/one-third
basis.
Three years later, Mr. Medure had not repaid the $10,000
loan to the Wheat First Securities account.  Mrs. Medure
contended before the trial court that the loan balance was an
asset that should be divided between her and Mr. Medure on the
basis of the Wheat First Securities account division.  The trial
court agreed and ordered Mr. Medure to pay Mrs. Medure
$3,333.33.  That ruling was error.
Rule 1:1, a mandatory rule, states "[a]ll
final judgments, orders, and decrees,
irrespective of terms of court, shall remain
under the control of the trial court and
subject to be modified, vacated, or
suspended for twenty-one days after the date
of entry, and no longer."  (Emphasis added).  
"At the expiration of that 21-day period,
the trial court loses jurisdiction to
disturb a final judgment, order, or decree
except for the limited authority conferred
by Code   8.01-428."
Bogart v. Bogart, 21 Va. App. 280, 290, 464 S.E.2d 157, 161-62
(1995) (citations omitted).
Mr. Medure's indebtedness was to the Wheat First Securities
account.  It was an asset of the account when the value of the
account was determined.  That value was divided by the June 11,
1998 final decree of divorce.  That determination and
distribution became final between the parties.
Mrs. Medure argues that Mr. Medure's indebtedness to the
account constituted an "increase in value" of the account.  We
disagree.  The term "increase in value" contemplated an increase
subsequent to the $227,757.31 appraisal set forth in the decree.  
Whatever value Mr. Medure's indebtedness may have represented
was not a future increase, but was a value in existence and thus
an element taken into account at the time the account was
appraised and divided.  That appraisal, having become final,
could not be reopened and recalculated.  The record does not
establish that an error covered by Code   8.01-428 exists.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
          Reversed.
* Pursuant to Code   17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.






Ask a Lawyer

 

 

FREE CASE REVIEW BY A LOCAL LAWYER!
|
|
\/

Personal Injury Law
Accidents
Dog Bite
Legal Malpractice
Medical Malpractice
Other Professional Malpractice
Libel & Slander
Product Liability
Slip & Fall
Torts
Workplace Injury
Wrongful Death
Auto Accidents
Motorcycle Accidents
Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Business/Corporate Law
Business Formation
Business Planning
Franchising
Tax Planning
Traffic/Transportation Law
Moving Violations
Routine Infractions
Lemon Law
Manufacturer Defects
Securities Law
Securities Litigation
Shareholder Disputes
Insider Trading
Foreign Investment
Wills & Estates

Wills

Trusts
Estate Planning
Family Law
Adoption
Child Abuse
Child Custody
Child Support
Divorce - Contested
Divorce - Uncontested
Juvenile Criminal Law
Premarital Agreements
Spousal Support
Labor/Employment Law
Wrongful Termination
Sexual Harassment
Age Discrimination
Workers Compensation
Real Estate/Property Law
Condemnation / Eminent Domain
Broker Litigation
Title Litigation
Landlord/Tenant
Buying/Selling/Leasing
Foreclosures
Residential Real Estate Litigation
Commercial Real Estate Litigation
Construction Litigation
Banking/Finance Law
Debtor/Creditor
Consumer Protection
Venture Capital
Constitutional Law
Discrimination
Police Misconduct
Sexual Harassment
Privacy Rights
Criminal Law
DUI / DWI / DOI
Assault & Battery
White Collar Crimes
Sex Crimes
Homocide Defense
Civil Law
Insurance Bad Faith
Civil Rights
Contracts
Estate Planning, Wills & Trusts
Litigation/Trials
Social Security
Worker's Compensation
Probate, Will & Trusts
Intellectual Property
Patents
Trademarks
Copyrights
Tax Law
IRS Disputes
Filing/Compliance
Tax Planning
Tax Power of Attorney
Health Care Law
Disability
Elder Law
Government/Specialty Law
Immigration
Education
Trade Law
Agricultural/Environmental
IRS Issues

 


Google
Search Rominger Legal


 


LEGAL HELP FORUM - Potential Client ? Post your question.
LEGAL HELP FORUM - Attorney? Answer Questions, Maybe get hired!

NOW - CASE LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try it for FREE


 


Get Legal News
Enter your Email


Preview

We now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!

ADD A SEARCH ENGINE TO YOUR PAGE!!!

TELL A FRIEND ABOUT ROMINGER LEGAL

Ask Your Legal Question Now.

Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board

Find An Attorney

TERMS OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES

Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2010.

A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.