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 Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Overton


ROBERT D. SWANDER
  MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 1664-00-2 PER CURIAM
        JULY 17, 2001
SUSAN M. SWANDER


FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
Timothy J. Hauler, Judge

 (Thomas F. Coates, III; Coates & Davenport,
on briefs), for appellant.

 (John N. Clifford; Clifford & Duke, P.C., on
brief), for appellee.



Robert D. Swander (husband) appeals the decision of the
circuit court awarding Susan M. Swander (wife) monthly spousal
support.  On appeal, husband contends that the trial court erred
in awarding wife spousal support of $650 per month when she had
stated in a deposition that she was seeking support of only $500
per month.  Husband asks that we vacate the trial court's order
and remand with instructions to award support in an amount not to
exceed $500.  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.  See Rule 5A:27.
On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party
prevailing below.  See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250,
391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990).
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
After a twenty-four-year marriage, husband and wife
separated in October 1996 and wife filed for divorce in February
1999.  They executed a property settlement agreement on
September 24, 1999, reserving the issue of spousal support for
adjudication by the court.  On October 28, 1999, the trial court
heard arguments on spousal support.  The parties submitted their
October 18, 1999 depositions into evidence.  In her deposition,
wife suggested that she would settle for $500 per month.  The
trial court issued a letter opinion on December 6, 1999, in
which it awarded wife $650 per month in spousal support.  
Husband filed a motion for reconsideration on February 14, 2000.  
The trial court rescinded its letter opinion on February 18,
2000 and accepted memoranda from the parties.  On April 12,
2000, the trial court again awarded wife spousal support of $650
per month.  
ANALYSIS
"Whether and how much spousal support will be awarded is a
matter of discretion for the trial court."  Barker v. Barker, 27
Va. App. 519, 527, 500 S.E.2d 240, 244 (1998).  "In fixing the
amount of the spousal support award, . . . the court's ruling
will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a clear
abuse of discretion.  We will reverse the trial court only when
its decision is plainly wrong or without evidence to support
it."  Gamble v. Gamble, 14 Va. App. 558, 574, 421 S.E.2d 635,
644 (1992) (citations omitted).  
Husband argues that because wife stated in her deposition
that she sought only $500 in monthly support, the trial court
erred in awarding her an amount greater than that.  Husband
relies upon the Supreme Court's prohibition against a
plaintiff's case rising higher than her testimony.  Massie v.
Firmstone, 134 Va. 450, 462, 114 S.E. 652, 655-56 (1922).  
However,
a litigant with a meritorious claim or
defense will not be cast out of court
because of some single, isolated statement
which, when taken out of context and pointed
to in the cold, printed record on appeal,
appears to be conclusive against him.

   This qualification to the rule requires
that a litigant's testimony be read as a
whole.  A damaging statement made in one
part of his testimony must be considered in
the light of an explanation of such
statement made in a later part of his
testimony.

VEPCO v. Mabin, 203 Va. 490, 493-94, 125 S.E.2d 145, 148 (1962).
Viewed in the context in which it was made, wife's
statement merely indicated that she did not expect to receive
more than $500 in monthly support.  Her testimony also revealed
that her monthly shortfall exceeded $1,200 and that $500 was
"not the amount that [she] need[ed]."  Wife's remarks during her
deposition did not clearly suggest that she only sought $500 in
monthly support.  
Furthermore, the pleadings in this case do not contain an
ad damnum clause.  As explained above, wife's equivocal
deposition testimony does not represent the amount of support
she sought.  Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the
trial court.  See Rule 5A:27.  
Affirmed.
* 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.