A Support Group for Fathers United and Women's Coalition and Legal Clinic Text or Call 571 214 2432 The legal clinic meets every other Thursday at Messiah United Methodist Church room 265 on Rolling Road in Springfield VA Call for additional dates Visit website http://fathersunitedwomenscoalition.com/
Search This Blog
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
VA SUPREME COURT decision on equitable distribution
122145 David v. David 02/27/2014 In a marital dispute under Virginia’s equitable distribution and marital property statutes, the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting Code § 20-107.3(A)(3)(a) as placing an initial burden upon the non-owning spouse, who seeks to establish that an appreciation in the value of separate property occurring during marriage is marital property, of proving that significant personal effort during marriage or a contribution of marital property proximately caused such appreciation. This statute provides that the non-owning spouse has the burden of proving that contributions of marital property or personal effort were made and that the separate property increased in value, and the statute provides that – once this burden of proof is met – the owning spouse has the burden of proving that the increase in value or some portion thereof was not caused by such contributions of marital property or personal effort. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VA Supreme Court Decision on Alimony
150770 Luttrell v. Cucco 04/28/2016 In an appeal from a ruling on a former husband’s motion for adjustment of spousal support, the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the circuit court’s conclusion that only opposite-sex couples can “cohabit” in a “relationship analogous to marriage” for purposes of Code § 20-109(A), applicable in considering the termination of spousal support under the parties’ property and support settlement agreement in the divorce. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, the award of attorney’s fees to the wife is vacated, and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing consistent with this opinion to determine whether the former wife cohabited with her fiancĂ©e within the meaning of Code § 20-109(A) and for reconsideration of attorney’s fees pursuant to the property settlement agreement at that time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)