From the Loudoun County Circuit Court, comes record no. 0819-22-4, Frank Howard v. Suzanne Howard. whereby Frank Howard appealed the decision of the Circuit Court that prevented a change in the amount of spousal support agreed upon to be paid to Suzanne Howard. Several months after the court date, Mr. Howard was a pedestrian in an accident that left him needing multiple surgeries and a need to retire. Despite those facts, Mr. Howard ultimately didn't have a substantial change in financial circumstances after retiring and after receiving disability. However, Mr. Howard "believes the court erred by not admitting his testimony about how the parties reached the original agreement and not allowing him to question the wife about her income in 2019. After the circuit court sustained the wife’s relevance objections, however, the husband did not proffer the excluded testimony for the record. Similar to the situation with a continuance, “[w]hen evidence is excluded by the court, the aggrieved party must make a proper proffer of the excluded testimony to preserve the ruling for appellate review.”
"The husband contends that the circuit court erred by finding that no material change in circumstances warranting modification of its spousal support award had occurred. Specifically, he believes that the court erroneously considered only his income and no other factors, such as the depletion of his assets and his inability to continue working. The husband argues that his injuries from the debilitating accident constituted “a totally unexpected and substantial material change in circumstances affecting his ability to pay spousal support.” In support, he suggests that his injuries “were so severe they affected every aspect of his life.”
"The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the eleventh-hour motion to continue the hearing. We do not consider the husband’s challenge to the exclusion of certain testimony because the expected testimony was not proffered for the record. In addition, the record supports the circuit court’s conclusion that the husband failed to establish a material change in circumstances warranting a change in the spousal support award. For these reasons, the circuit court’s ruling is affirmed. We also deny the wife’s request for attorney fees and costs."
Ultimately, Mr. Howards accident and lifestyle changed did not prove to change his financial situation and the spousal support decision was upheld. Make sure to consult with an attorney well-versed in appeals before taking on the expense. The cause may not be worth the expense.
Comments