COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Fr ank, Clements and Haley

SCOTT ALLEN McNAMARA MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0742-05-4 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 14, 2006 CAROL RICHTER McNAMARA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Kathleen H. McKay, Judge (Scott A. McNamara, pro se , on brief). No brief for appellee.

Scott A. McNamara, husband, a ppeals the trial court’ s award of spousal s upport to Carol R. McNamara, wife. Husband argues on appeal the trial court abus ed its discretion by awarding spousal support to wife for an undefined dura tion and the evidence did no t support the award. Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decisi on of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. Background On appeal, we view th e evidence and all reason able inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party pr evailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire , 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). Husband and wife were married on April 21, 1984 . They separated in 2003 and were divorced by final decree entered on February 23, 2005. They had thr ee children during the marriage.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - At the December 18, 2004 hearin g, the trial court made a num ber of factual findings and addressed many of the factors of Code § 20-107.1(E) related to spou sal support awards. Husband is a plastic surgeon with an office in Washington, D.C. The trial cour t found that, duri ng the marriage, wife “devoted herself utterly to the family enterp rise that was her husban d’s practice.” The court also found that wife contributed monetarily to the marriage, primarily at the beginning of the marriage when husband was in training. Her contributions became more non-monetary when husband began practicing medicine, although she remain ed “pivotal in the runn ing of his business.” The court noted that wife decorated husband’s offi ce, managed office staff to promote his business, “was instrumental in overseeing” husband’s accounts, and networked with organizations to promote his interests. Wife was the primary caretaker of the children during the marriage. Both parties are in their mid-forties and presented no evidence of health issu es. The parties had few ma rital assets. The trial court found that the parties lived a “very extravagant lifestyle.” Wi fe presented evidence that she spends $10,522 per month to maintain her house hold, and husband presen ted evidence that he spends $8,678.19 per month to maintain his household. Wife in tended to return to employment in January 2005, earning $25,000 per year. Husband presented eviden ce that his income ha d decreased from about $300,000 per year to about $30,000 per year over the past ten years. However, based on the evidence presented, the trial court imputed income of $150,000 per year to husband. The court awarded wife $40,000 of the
marital assets. The trial court also awarded wife s pousal support of $3,000 pe r month, stating it was wife’s “only way of any kind of security for the future at all.”- 3 - Analysis Code § 20-107.1(C) provides that “[t]he court, in its discreti on, may decree th at maintenance and support of a spouse be made in periodic pa yments for a defined dura tion, or in periodic payments for an undefined duration, or in a lu mp sum award, or in an y combination thereof.” In awarding spousal support, the chancellor must consider the relative needs and abilities of the parties. He is guided by the . . . factors that are set forth in Code § 20-107.1. When the chancellor has given due consideration to thes e factors, his determination will not be disturbed on appeal except for clear abuse of discretion. Collier v. Collier , 2 Va. App. 125, 129, 34 1 S.E.2d 827, 829 (1986). At the December 18, 2004 hear ing, the trial court consider ed the factors of Code § 20-107.1(E) in making the spousal support award. The c ourt particularly referenced the obligations, needs, and financial resources of the pa rties; duration of the ma rriage; age and physical condition of the parties; circumst ances and factors which contribut ed to the diss olution of the marriage; income and earn ing capacities of the parties; standa rd of living established during the marriage; contributions, both monetary and non-mo netary, of each party to the well-being of the family; and the decisions regard ing employment and career economics made by the parties during the marriage and their effect on presen t and future earning potential. See Code § 20-107.1(E). As we stated in Joynes v. Payne , 36 Va. App. 401, 551 S. E.2d 10 (2001), “[Code § 20-107.1] does not require the trial court to spec ify the date of termination of a spousal support award. In fact, the language allows the trial cour t to order an award for an undefined duration.” Id. at 423, 551 S.E.2d at 21. Given the economic ci rcumstances of the part ies and the improbability that the disparity in the incomes of the parties will significantly change in the future, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in its ruling. Finding no “clear abuse of discretion,” we will not disturb the trial court’s decision.- 4 - Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.