Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer Rob Hagy

Father Properly Awarded Physical Custody But Properly Denied Sole Legal Custody

In Denise v. Tencer, the trial court did not err in finding that a material change in circumstances had occurred and in finding it in the child’s best interests to award physical custody to father.  However, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant the father sole legal custody.

Refinancing Does Prevent Tracing

In the case of Weise v. Weise, the Virginia Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred concerning the equitable distribution of the parties' marital residence.  Refinancing does not preclude the possibility of tracing separate property or constitute an independent transmutation, even if proceeds of the refinancing becomes martial property.

Tracing Prevented Classification as Martial Property

Upon rehearing en banc, in the case of Robinson v. Robinson, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that trial court erred when it classified the parties’ assets as marital property notwithstanding its conclusion that appellant sustained his burden of proving retraceability of the assets from the husband's separate property.

Tax Refunds Properly Divided

In King v. King, the Virginia Court of Appeals held the trial court did not err in its division of the parties’ income tax refunds.

QDRO Was Appropriate Exercise of Court's Statutory Authority to Effect Intent and Purpose of Final Decree

In the case of Turner v. Turner, the Virginia Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in entering the Qualified Domestic Relations Order as the QDRO was an administrative mechanism to effectuate the intent and purpose of the final decree’s award pursuant to the Court's authority as stated in Va. Code Section 20-107(K)(4).

Property Agreement Not Unconscionable

In the case of Galloway v. Galloway, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, ruled that the trial court did not err in finding that the parties’ property settlement agreement was valid and enforceable.  The wife failed to satisfy her burden of proving that the agreement was unconscionable even though the agreement gave the husband 94% of the assets where wife had opportunity have agreement reviewed by an attorney and chose not to among other factors indicating she was not forced to sign the agreement.

Wife Not Entitled to Difference Between Temporary Support and 1/2 of Pension

In Irwin v. Irwin, the Virginia Court of Appeals held in a published opinion that the trial court erred in ordering that while wife’s property interest vested and pension payments were due to her as of date of final decree, husband was not liable for the difference between pendente lite spousal support paid and an amount equal to amount of one-half of pension amount for specified months.