COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: J u d g e s B e a l e s

, R u s s e l l a n d S e n i o r J u d g e H a l e y

Argued b y v i d e o c o n f

e r e n c e

J O H N S T A R K

v. Record No. 0 3 5 6

- 2 1

- 4

F I R O U Z E H D I N A R A N Y OPI NION BY

J U D G E R A N D O L P H A

. B E A L E S

F I R O U Z E H D I N A R A N Y NO VE MBER 30 , 2021

v. Record No. 0 1 6 6

- 2 1

- 4

J O H N S T A R K

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF F A I R F A X C O U N T Y

D a v i d B e r n h a

r d , Judge

T a r a S t e i n n e r d T a

l l e y ( S t e i n n e r d L a w P L L C

, o n b r i e f s )

, for J o h n

S t a r k

.

M i n j i K i m ( A l a n n a C.E. W i l l i a m s ; C o o k

, C r a i g & F r a n c u z e n k o

, PLLC

, o n b r i e f

s )

, for F i r o u z e h D i n a r a n y

.

I n t h e s e c o m p a n i o n a p p e a l s

, b o t h J o h n S t a r k a n d F i r o u z e h D i n a r a n y a p p e a l f r o m a

d i v o r c e d e c r e e o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f F a i r f a x C o u n t y

. S t a r k a r g u e s o n a p p e a l that “ [ t ] h e t r i a l

c o u r t e rr e d b y i n c l u d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ’ p o s t

- n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t i n t o e v i d e n c e ” a n d f u r t h e r c h a l l e n g e s

t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n s o n s p o u s a l s u p p o r t a n d e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n

. D i n a r a n y a l s o

c h a l l e n g e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g s o n s p o u s a l s u p p o r t a n d e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d f u r t h e r

a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n i t s a p p o r t i o n m e n t o f a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s

. 1

1 In her brief

, D i n a r a n y ’ s ei g hth assignment o f erro r state s that “ [t ]he trial court e rred in

the amount of child support by not making an adjustmen t in favor of the Wife for support of

another child, ” but Dinarany expressly states on brief t hat “ this assignment of error must also be

conceded. ” PUBLISHED- 2

- I

. B A C K G R O U N D

S t a r k a n d D i n a r a n y w e r e m a r r i e d o n D e c e m b e r 1 8

, 2 0 1 2

. T h e y h a v e a d a u g h t e r t o g e t h e r

,

w h o w a s b o r n d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e

. D i n a r a n y a l s o h a s a s o n f r o m a p r i o r m a rr i a g e

.

A t t h e t i m e o f t h e m a rr i a g e

, S t a r k s e r v e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s A r m y

. H e c o n t i n u e d t o

s e r v e u n t i l l a t e 2 0 1 6

, w h e n h e r e t i r e d f r o m t h e A r m y a n d a c c e p t e d a p o s i t i o n a s a d i p l o m a t w i t h

t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f S t a t e

. A c c o r d i n g t o S t a r k

, h e s e r v e d m o r e t h a n t w e n t y

- f i v e

y e a r s i n t h e A r m y i n t o t a l

– t h e l a s t f o u r o f w h i c h h e s e r v e d w h i l e m a r r i e d t o D i n a r a n y

. D u e t o

h i s m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e

, S t a r k e a r n s a m o n t h l y r e t i r e m e n t p e n s i o n f r o m t h e A r m y

.

T h e p a r t i e s o w n a h o m e i n M c L e a n

, V i r g i n i a

, w h i c h t h e y a c q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e m a rr i a g e

.

I n S t a r k ’ s c o m p l a i n t f

o r d i v o r c e

, h e s t a t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s “ h a d t e n a n t s s c h e d u l e d t o m o v e i n t o

t h e h o m e i n A u g u s t

, 2 0 1 9 ” b u t a l l e g e d t h a t D i n a r a n y “ u n i l a t e r a l l y c a n c e l l e d t h e c o n t r a c t f o r t h e

t e n a n t s ” a n d m o v e d i n t o t h e M c L e a n h o m e w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n a t t h e e n d o f J u l y 2 0 1 9

. T h e p a r t i e s

t h u s s e p a r a t e d a t t h e e n d o f J u l y 2 0 1 9

. A f t e r t h e p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d

, S t a r k c o n t i n u e d m a k i n g

m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s o n t h e M c L e a n h o m e u n t i l A p r i l 2 0 2 0

, a f t e r w h i c h h e p l a c e d t h e h o m e i n

m o r t g a g e f

o r b e a r a n c e

. S t a r k t e s t i f

i e d t h a t t h e f

o r b e a r a n c e p e r m i t t e d h i m t o d e f e r m o r t g a g e

p a y m e n t s f

o r u p t o o n e y e a r w i t h n o p e n a l t y a n d t h a t h e w o u l d t h e n p a y b a c k t h e d e f e r r e d

p a y m e n t s a t t h e e n d o f t h e f o r b e a r a n c e p e r i o d

. H e f

u r t h e r t e s t i f

i e d t h a t

, a s t h e o n l y p a r t y n a m e d

a s l i a b l e o n t h e m o r t g a g e

, h e d i d n o t n e e d D i n a r a n y ’ s c o n s e n t f o r t h e f o r b e a r a n c e

.

S t a r k a n d D i n a r a n y e x e c u t e d t w o a g r e e m e n t s t h a t a r e r e l e v a n t t o t h e s e a p p e a l s

. O n

December 17, 2012, the day before their marriage

, t h e y e x e c u t e d a prenuptial a g r e e m e n t

. The

prenuptial agre ement c o n t a i n e d a p a r a g r a p h e n t i t l e d “ D i s s o l u t i o n o f M a rr i a g e

, ” w h i c h s t a t e d t h a t

“ i t is the express intention of John and Firouzeh that the follo wing provisions shall prevail in the

event of a dissolution ” o f t h e m a rr i a g e :

a. Each p arty shall have an equa l inter e s t in al l property acqu ired

by either party during the course of the marriage ( except property- 3

- that is merely the result of an incr ease in the value of property

owned separately by the parties prio r to the marriage, as listed on

the attached schedu les).

b

. All sa vings, inves t m e nts, retirement accounts, and all property

listed on the attached schedules as separate property (owned by a

party prior to the marriage) shall remain the separate property o f

that party who br ou ght suc h property into the mar riage, i n cluding

any appreciati on, income, or other increase to such property.

c. All joint property and accounts shall be divided equally

. d

. The parties shall have joint custody of any children born to or

adopted into th e marriag e. Such joint custody e ntitles e ach par ty to

equal vis itation time, or time which is otherwise fair and equitable.

T h e a g r e e m e n t a l s o p r o v i d e d t h a t “ in the event of a marital separation or dissolution, it is agreed

and understo od that neither pa rt y shall seek or obtain any fo r m of ali m o ny or s upport from the

other, or seek any relief, other than a distribution of their jo int property interests or those

property interests acquired during the course of the marriage, in any manner other than as

prov id ed by t his Agreement. ” I n a d d i t i o n

, t h e prenup tial agreement contained a p rovisi on

g o v e r n i n g r e v o c a t i o n

, which s t a t e d t h a t a n y s u b s e q u e n t r e v o c a t i o n “ shall be ineffective until

recorded with the rec order in the county where the partie s maintain their pr im ary res idence or

bo th counties if the p a rties a re maintaining separate residences in separate counties. ”

T he parties s u b s e q u e n t l y e x e c u t e d a postnuptial a g r e e m e n t o n A u g u s t 1 7

, 2 0 1 6

. The

postnuptial a g r e e m e n t is a one

- page document t h a t c o n t a i n s o n e o p e r a t i v e p r o v i s i o n , which says

,

“ In con sid e r atio n o f the marria ge between the partie s, the parties mutually agree to the

following: The pre

- nuptial agreement of December 17, 2012 is nulli fied. ” T h e postnuptial

a g r e e m e n t w a s s i g n e d b y b o t h p a r t i e s a n d s w o r n b e f o r e a n o t a r y

.

S t a r k f i l e d f o r d i v o r c e o n A p r i l 1 3

, 2 0 2 0

. I n h i s c o m p l a i n t f o r d i v o r c e

, S t a r k a s k e d f

o r a

d i v o r c e “ o n t h e g r o u n d s o f d e s e r t i o n ” a n d r e q u e s t e d s p e c i f i c a n d g e n e r a l r e l i e f f

r o m t h e t r i a l

c o u r t

, i n c l u d i n g “ [ t ] h a t h e b e a w a r d e d p h y s i c a l a n d l e g a l c u s t o d y o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d o f t h e

p a r t i e s ;

. . . [ t ] h a t t h e C o u r t d i v i d e

, t r a n s f e r o r p a r t i t i o n m a r i t a l property w h i c h i s t i t l e d i n t h e

n a m e s o f b o t h p a r t i e s ;

. . . [ t ] h a t t h e C o u r t g r a n t t o P l a i n t i f f a m o n e t a r y a w a r d

, p a y a b l e i n e i t h e r a- 4

-

l u m p s u m o r o v e r a p e r i o d o f t i m e i n f i x e d a m o u n t s ; [ a n d ] [ t ] h a t h e m a y b e g r a n t e d a n y a n d s u c h

f u r t h e r r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n s 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 1

, 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 2 a n d 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 3 [

. ] ” The c omplaint did not

refer to any prenuptial agreement between the parties. D i n a r a n y f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m f

o r d i v o r c e

o n A p r i l 2 1

, 2 0 2 0

, i n w h i c h sh e a sked for l e g a l a n d p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y

, s p o u s a l s u p p o r t

, child

support, equitable distribution

, attorney’s fees

, a n d “ s u c h other r e m e d i e s a s a r e a v a i l a b l e t o h e r

p u r s u a n t t o t h e C o u r t ’ s e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d s p o u s a l s u p p o r t a w a r d p o w e r s [

. ] ” A t rial d a te

was set for Oc tober 26, 2020. I n s e t t i n g t h e t r i a l d a t e

, t h e circuit court entered a scheduling order

providing that “[t]he parties shall complete discovery, including depositions, by thi rty (30) da ys

before the applicable trial date [

. ] ”

D u r i n g d i s c o v e r y

, S t a r k p r o d u c e d the prenuptial a g r e e m e n t for the first time

. D i n a r a n y

c l a i m e d t h a t s h e t h e n provided a copy of the postnuptial a g r e e m e n t t o h e r c o u n s e l the following

day

. D i n a r a n y ’ s c o u n s e l claim e d t h a t he then sent t h e postnuptial a g r e e m e n t to S t a r k a n d h i s

counsel. S t a r k ’s counsel denied receiving a copy of the postnuptial a g r e e m e n t and furt her

argued that Dinar any a n d h e r counsel failed to produce any documents relevant to equitable

distributio n before the discovery deadline s e t b y t h e s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r

. C o n s e q u e n t l y

, S t a r k filed

a motion in limine seeking to exclude D i n a r a n y ’s proposed financial exhibits as well as the

postnuptial agreement itself. In the motion in limine

, S t a r k a r g u e d that “[ t] his pro perty/support

case is g overned b y a pre

- nuptial a gre ement, which was properly disclosed in Plaintiff ’ s

discovery resp onse s

. ” I n response, D i n a r a n y argued that the postnuptial a g r e e m e n t nullified the

prenuptial a g r e e m e n t a n d that S t a r k could not c la im to b e surprised by the postnuptial a g r e e m e n t

giv en that he signed it and knew about it. The c i r c u i t court held a hearing on the motion in

limine a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y entered an order barring D i n a r a n y ’s financial exhibits from tri al but

ruling that “Defen da nt [ D i n a r a n y ] may present the Pos t

- Nuptial Agre e ment [

. ] ” T he following- 5

-

Monday

, October 26, 2020

, was the first day of trial

. On t h e m o r n i n g o f October 26

, D i n a r a n y ’s

counsel recorded the postnuptial a g r e e m e n t in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County.

A t t r i a l

, S t a r k t e s t i f

i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s s i g n e d a prenuptial a g r e e m e n t t h e d a y b e f o r e t h e

m a rr i a g e

. H e t h e n m o v e d t o a d m i t b o t h t h e prenuptial a g r e e m e n t a n d t h e postnuptial a g r e e m e n t

i n t o e v i d e n c e

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e s t a t e d

, “ Well, just by admitting it, I ’ m not say ing that I ’ m going to

enf orce i t. O bvio u sly , yo u tw o are

. . . disputing a s to whether it is enforceable or not. I think I

need

. . . to rev iew both agreements plus all the evidence to determine whether it is

enforceabl e [

. ] ” S t a r k ’ s c o u n s e l r e p l i e d

, “ O f c o u r s e

. ” S t a r k ’ s c o u n s e l s u b s e q u e n t l y r e i t e r a t e d

, “ I

d o n ’ t h a v e a p r o b l e m w i t h t h a t c o m i n g i n

, ” a n d s t a t e d s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r

,

They are tr ying to say that Mr. Stark absolutely knew there was a

postnup. We ’ re not object i ng to that. Of course, he knew t here

was one. We neve r said ot herwi se. He di dn ’ t h ave a copy o f it,

and he had no idea if it was going to be produce d or not. They did

pro duce it after the dead line. Again, we don ’ t have a problem with

it coming in.

T h e p a r t i e s d i s p u t e d w h e t h e r t h e p ostnuptial a g r e e m e n t e f f e c t i v e l y r e v o k e d t h e prenupt ial

a g r e e m e n t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o v i s i o n t h a t a n y r e v o c a t i o n “ shall be ineffective until recorded with

the rec order in the county where the parties maintain their prima ry residence or bo th counti es if

the parties are maintai ning sepa rate re side n ces i n sepa rate counties

, ” w h i c h i n v o l v e d a l e n g t h y

f a c t u a l d i s p u t e o v e r S t a r k ’ s r e s i d e n c e f o r p u rp o s e s o f t h e a g r e e m e n t

. The trial court

subsequently ruled that the recorded postnuptial a g r e e m e n t would be a dmis sib le and that the

postnuptial a g r e e m e n t r e v o k e d t h e pr enuptial a g r e e m e n t

. The trial judge noted that “this Court,

in particular me, takes very seriously the rules in discovery,” but also noted that “[t]he problem

in th is particular case is that wha t is soug ht to be excluded is a par ticular it em o f e vidence, an

agreement, that both parties . . . an agreement that both parties knew existed.” Continuing , the

trial jud ge noted that “ in this case, there are unusual circumst ances that

– this is not an ex pe rt

repo rt sought to be a dmitted o r some ite m of ev idence wh ere the plaintiff doesn’t know exactly- 6

-

what they’ve signed. . . . This is an item of evidence that both partie s knew existed and signed.”

On the i ssue of whether th e postnuptial a g r e e m e n t revoke d the pre nuptial a g r e e m e n t , t he t rial

judge r easo n ed that t h e p a r t i e s h a d n o t s h o w n t h a t S t a r k m a i n t a i n e d a r e s i d e n c e i n a n o t h e r

c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e agreement c o u l d b e r e c o r d e d

. W h e n S t a r k o b j e c t e d

, t he trial judge asked

,

“In whi ch county does he have a s ep arate r esidence?” H i s counsel r e s p o n d e d :

I ’ m g o ing to be q uiet. Beca use what ’ s going t o h appen is I ’ m

going to share that, and the defense is going to file it. And then

what ’ s going to happen is we ’ re going to come back, and you ’ r e

going to say, “ Oops

, it ’ s a matter of eq uity now. I ca n ’ t do

anyth ing a bout it. ” S o, no, I ele ct not to elect th at. And you have

not tak en evidence on where his residence is. So if it ’ s coming in,

let ’ s let it come in, let ’ s continue the trial, and we ’ ll deal with it on

ap peal.

C o n s e q u e n t l y , the tri al court procee ded to con s ider the is sues r a i s e d b e t w e e n S t a r k ’ s c o m p l a i n t

f o r d i v o r c e a n d D i n a r a n y ’ s c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r d i v o r c e

, including spousal support , equitable

distribution, and attorney’s fee s

.

I n t h e f i n a l d i v o r c e d e c r e e

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t n o t e d t h a t S t a r k p r o v i d e d f o r t h e f a m i l y

f i n a n c i a l l y w h i l e D i n a r a n y t o o k c a r e o f t h e h o m e a n d t e n d e d t o t h e c h i l d r e n

. M o r e o v e r

, S t a r k

f i n a n c e d t h e d o w n p a y m e n t o n t h e m a r i t a l h o m e w i t h h i s s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y a n d m a d e

p o s t

- s e p a r a t i o n m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s w h i l e D i n a r a n y m a d e “ s u b s t a n t i a l n o n m o n e t a r y

c o n t r i b u t i o n s

, ” s u c h a s f

i n d i n g t h e M c L e a n h o m e

, w o r k i n g w i t h t h e r e a l t o r t o o b t a i n t h e h o m e

,

w o r k i n g w i t h c o n t r a c t o r s t o d o k i t c h e n a n d b a t h r o o m r e n o v a t i o n s

, a n d g e n e r a l l y main tai n i n g t h e

h o m e

. I n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f i t s f i n d i n g s

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d

, “ T h e M c L e a n h o u s e s h a l l b e l i s t e d

f o r s a l e a n d s o l d a s e x p e d i t i o u s l y a s p o s s i b l e [

. ] ” T h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e n e t p r o c e e d s

w o u l d b e d i v i d e d s u c h t h a t S t a r k “ s h a l l r e c e i v e t h e f i r s t p a y m e n t o f $ 9

, 0 6 7

. 5 2 f o r h i s s o l e

p a y m e n t s o f t h e p r i n c i p a l o f t h e m o r t g a g e f r o m t h e d a t e o f s e p a r a t i o n ( p a y m e n t o f J u l y 3 1

, 2 0 1 9 )

t o t h e d a t e t h e h o m e w a s p l a c e d i n f o r b e a r a n c e ( o n o r a b o u t M a y 1

, 2 0 2 0 ) ” a n d t h a t S t a r k “ s h a l l

r e c e i v e a r e t u r n o f h i s s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y d o w n p a y m e n t t o w a r d s t h e p r o p e r t y

, ” w h i c h t h e t r i a l- 7

-

c o u r t f o u n d “ w a s p r o p e r l y t r a c e d i n H u s b a n d ’ s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e v i d e n c e a s h i s s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y

,

i n t h e amount o f $ 1 7 5

, 7 3 7

. 4 4

. ” T h e t r i a l c o u r t f u r t h e r r u l e d t h a t a n y “ r e m a i n i n g p r o c e e d s

, a f t e r

t h e a b o v e p a y m e n ts t o H u s b a n d

, s h a l l b e d i v i d e d e q u a l l y ( 5 0 / 5 0 ) between t h e p a r t i e s

. ”

( E m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. F i n a l l y

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d

, “ I f the forbearance agreement requires that the

forbearanc e mortgage amounts be paid before, d uring, or after the closin g o f this pr operty, the

Wife and H usband s h all b e equ ally r e sponsible f or mak ing these payments. ”

W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f S t a r k ’ s A r m y r e t i r e m e n t p e n s i o n

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d

,

“ T h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a s t o t h e m a r i t a l p o r t i o n o f H u s b a n d ’ s p e n s i o n

, o r i f a n y

p o r t i o n o f t h i s a s s e t i s m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y

. ” C o n s e q u e n t l y

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d

, “ A s i d e f r o m t h e

T S P d i s t r i b u t i o n a b o v e

, t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l k e e p a n y a n d a l l r e t i r e m e n t

, p e n s i o n

, I R A o r o t h e r

f u n d s / b e n e f i t s c u r r e n t l y h e l d i n t h e i r n a m e

, a s t h e i r s o l e a n d s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y

, w i t h n o

c o n t r i b u t i o n f

r o m t h e o t h e r p a r t y

. ”

A s f o r spousal support, the trial court m a d e f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t o n e a c h o f t h e s t a t u t o r y

f a c t o r s a n d ordered S t a r k to pay spousal support to D i n a r a n y i n t h e a m o u n t of $3,500 pe r mont h

for a period of fo ur years.

F i n a l l y

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t “ cons idered the issue of attorney ’ s fees under advisement after

co nclusion of the arguments on the awarding of fees. ” T h e c o u r t t h e n r u l e d

, “ Upon

consideration of the evidence and arguments p resente d, the Court finds th at it i s proper t o awar d

atto rney ’ s fees to the Husband and orders the Wife to reimburse the Husban d a tota l of

$17,360.55 of his attorneys ’ fees incurred in this case. ” H o w e v e r

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y

o r d e r e d t h a t some o f t h e a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s w o u l d b e a p p o r t i o n e d b e t w e e n D i n a r a n y a n d h e r c o u n s e l

f o r t h e d i s c o v e r y v i o l a t i o n s c a u s e d b y c o u n s e l a n d f o r “ n e e d l e s s l y increas [ i n g ] t h e c o s t o f

l i t i g a t i o n

. ” B o t h S t a r k a n d D i n a r a n y a p p e a l e d d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n

.- 8

- I I

. A N A L Y S I S

A

. S t a r k ’ s A s s i g n m e n t o f E r r o r 1 R e g a r d i n g t h e P a r t i e s ’ A g r e e m e n t s

S t a r k ’ s f i r s t a s s i g n m e n t o f e r

r o r i s t h a t “ [ t ] h e t r i a l c o u r t e rr e d b y i n c l u d i n g the parties’

po st

- nuptial agreement into evidence, because it was not timely prod uc ed in d iscovery, and it

was n ot effectuated a s requi red by P ar agraph 1 2 of the premarital agree men t, bec ause it w as not

registered in the county of residence of the Hu sband. ”

“ T h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r t o a d m i t e v i d e n c e ‘ r e s t s w i t h i n t h e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e

c i r c u i t c o u r t a n d w i l l o n l y b e d i s t u r b e d o n a p p e a l u p o n a s h o w i n g o f a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

. ’ ”

L e e v

. S p o d e n

, 2 9 0 V a

. 2 3 5

, 2 5 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) ( q u o t i n g G a m a c h e v

. A l l e n

, 2 6 8 V a

. 2 2 2

, 2 2 8 ( 2 0 0 4 ) )

.

M o r e o v e r

, Rule 4:12(b) p r o v i d e s

, “ If a party

. . . fai ls to obe y an order to provide or permit

discov ery,

. . . the co urt in w hich the action is pending may make such orders in regard to th e

failure as are just [

. ] ” T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s m a d e c l e a r t h a t “ [ a ] trial c ourt genera lly exercises

‘ broad di scretion ’ in det erm ining the appropriate sa nction for fai lur e to co mply wi th an or der

relatin g to discover y

. ” Walsh v. Bennett , 260 Va. 171, 175 (2000) (quoting Woodbury v.

C ourt ney

, 239 Va. 651, 654 (1990) )

. “ B ecause the trial court ‘ exercis es broad discr etio n in

d etermin ing the appropriate sa nc tion, ’ ” this C ourt re vie ws it s decision f or an abuse o f discretion.

Galloway v. C o u n ty of Northampton , 299 Va. 558

, 5 6 3 (20 21) (quoting L andrum v. Chippenham

& Johns to n

- Willis Hosps., In c. , 282 Va. 346, 352 (2 011) ). “ Wh en w e say t hat a circuit court has

di scretio n, we mean tha t ‘ the [ circuit] co urt has a range of choice, and that its decision will not

be disturbed as long as it stays withi n that range and is not influe nced by any mistake of law. ’ ”

Gali otos v. Galiotos

, 30 0 Va. 1

, 10 (2021) ( a l t e r a t i o n i n o r i g i n a l ) ( q u o t i n g Lan dru m , 28 2 Va. a t

35 2 )

. “Thus, only when reasonable jurists could not differ can we say an ab use of discretion has

occurred.” I d

. a t 11 ( q u o t i n g Sauder v. Fergu son , 289 Va. 449, 459 (2015) )

.- 9

-

T h e t r i a l c o u r t f

o u n d t h a t D i n a r a n y ’ s c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e S t a r k a n d h i s a t t o r n e y w i t h

a c o p y o f t h e postnuptial a g r e e m e n t u n t i l O c t o b e r 2 1

, 2 0 2 0

, a f t e r t h e d i s c o v e r y d e a d l i n e s e t b y

t h e s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r h a d p a s s e d

. S t a r k t h u s c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d h a v e e x c l u d e d

t h e postnuptial a g r e e m e n t f r o m e v i d e n c e b e c a u s e i t “ w a s n o t t i m e l y p r o d u c e d i n d i s c o v e r y [

. ] ”

H e t h e r e f o r e a r g u e s o n a p p e a l t h a t “ [ t ] his case should be remanded to the trial court with

instructions to enforce the parties’ premarital agr ee ment. ”

H o w e v e r

, a l though t h e prenuptial a g r e e m e n t c o n t a i n e d a s p e c i f i c p a r a g r a p h g o v e r n i n g

j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e e v e n t o f d i v o r c e

, S t a r k ’ s c o m p l a i n t f o r d i v o r c e m a d e n o m e n t i o n o f

t h e prenuptial a g r e e m e n t o r i t s p r o v i s i o n s f o r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e m a rr i a g e

. A s t h e S u p r e m e

C o u r t o f V i r g i n i a h a s r e p e a t e d l y s t a t e d

, “ I t i s f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t n o c o u r t c a n b a s e i t s

j u d g m e n t o r d e c r e e u p o n f a c t s n o t a l l e g e d o r u p o n a r i g h t w h i c h h a s n o t b e e n p l e a d e d a n d

c l a i m e d

. ” Ted La nsin g Supply Co. v. R oyal Al um inum & Const. Corp

. , 221 Va

. 1139, 1141

(1981 ) ; s e e a l s o P otts v. Math ieson Alkal i Works , 165 Va. 196, 207 (1935) ( “ No court can base

its decree upon facts not alleg ed, nor render its judgment upon a r ight, howev er meritorious

,

wh ich has not been pleaded a nd clai med. ” ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) )

. “ U nder Virgi nia ’ s not ice plea ding

reg ime, ‘ [e]very pleading shall state the facts on which the party relies in numbered paragraphs,

and it shall be sufficient if it c le arly inform s the opposite par ty of the true nature of t he clai m or

defen s e. ’ ” All is on v. Brown , 293 Va. 6 17, 62 4 (20 17) ( q u o t i n g Rule 1:4(d) ) ( a l t e r a t i o n i n

o r i g i n a l )

. E x p l a i n e d m o r e t h o r o u g h l y b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t

,

Th e basis of every right of recovery under our sys te m o f

jurisp rudence is a plead ing setti ng forth facts warrant ing the

g rant ing of the r elief sou ght

. . . . Plea dings are as essential as

proof, the one being unavailing without the other. A decree cann ot

be entered in the absence of pleadings upon which to found the

same, and if so entered it is void

.

Ted Lansing , 2 21 V a. a t 114 1

. T h u s

, “ [ t ] he iss ues in a case a r e made by the pleadings, and not

by the testimony of witnesses or other evidence. ” I d

. B e c a u s e t h e i s s u e s i n a c a s e a r e m a d e b y- 10

-

t h e p l e a d i n g s

, i t f

o l l o w s t h a t

, a s t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s a l s o s t a t e d

, a “ [ d ] efendan t i s s u p p o s e d t o

k n o w t h e p l a i n t i f

f ’ s g r i e v a n c e s o n l

y f r o m h i s s t a t e m e n t o

f t h e m i n t h e p l e a d i n g s

. ” L e e v

.

L a m b e r t

, 2 0 0 V a

. 7 9 9

, 8 0 2 ( 1 9 5 9 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ( q u o t i n g B a n k o f G i l e s C n t y

. v

. M a s o n

, 1 9 9

V a

. 1 7 6

, 1 8 0 ( 1 9 5 7 ) )

.

H e r e

, d e s p i t e t h e a b s e n c e o f e v e n a p a s s i n g r e f e r e n c e t o t h e pre nu ptial a g r e e m e n t i n t h e

c o m p l a i n t

, S t a r k ’ s c o u n s e l s t a t e d d u r i n g h e r o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t s a t t r i a l t h a t i t governs t h i s c a s e

a n d a l s o s t a t e d t h a t “ [ t ] h e b i g g e s t i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s g o i n g t o b e t h e p r e n u p a n d t h e p o s t n u p

, ”

t h a t “ w e a r e m o v i n g f

o r w a r d i n t h i s c a s e s a y i n g t h a t t h e p r e n u p c o n t r o l s t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e

p r o p e r t y

, ” a n d t h a t “ [ s ] i n c e t h e p r e n u p d o e s control t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y

, i t s e e m s p r e t t y

e a s y h o w w e ’ r e g o i n g t o d i v i d e t h i n g s

. ” S t a r k ’ s c o u n s e l a l s o s a i d

, “ I n t h e p r e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t

,

b o t h p a r t i e s h a v e w a i v e d s p o u s a l s u p p o r t [

, ] [ s ] o w e d o n ’ t h a v e a n y s p o u s a l s u p p o r t i s s u e s i n t h i s

c a s e

. ”

T h e f

i r s t t i m e S t a r k i d e n t i f

i e d t h e prenuptial a g r e e m e n t w a s d u r i n g d i s c o v e r y

– i n h i s

a n s w e r s t o d e f

e n d a n t ’ s i n t e r

r o g a t o r i e s

. H o w e v e r

, t h e a n s w e r s t h a t S t a r k p r o v i d e d i n r e s p o n s e t o

D i n a r a n y ’ s i n t e r

r o g a t o r i e s d u r i n g d i s c o v e r y d o not c o n s t i t u t e a p l e a d i n g a s s e r t i n g a c o n t r a c t u a l

r i g h t

. S t a r k ’ s a r g u m e n t a t t r i a l ( a n d n o w b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t ) t u r n s o n t h e e n f o r c e a b i l i t y o f t h e

prenuptial a g r e e m e n t

– a s i l l u s t r a t e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t S t a r k ’ s c o u n s e l o p e n e d b y s t a t i n g t h a t “ t h e

b i g g e s t i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s g o i n g t o b e t h e p r e n u p a n d t h e p o s t n u p

. ” M o r e o v e r

, i n D i n a r a n y ’ s

c o u n t e r c l a i m f

o r d i v o r c e

, s h e a s s e r t e d s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l c l a i m s f o r r e l i e f t h a t c o n t r a v e n e t h e

e x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e pre nup tial a g r e e m e n t

, i n c l u d i n g a c l a i m f o r s p o u s a l s u p p o r t a n d a c l a i m

t o a p o r t i o n o f S t a r k ’ s r e t i r e m e n t p e n s i o n

, b u t S t a r k d i d n o t f i l e a n a n s w e r o r r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g

r a i s i n g a d e f

e n s e t o D i n a r a n y ’ s cl a i m s b a s e d o n t h e p renuptial a g r e e m e n t ’ s g o v e r n i n g t h o s e

c l a i m s

. I n a d d i t i o n

, S t a r k d i d n o t s e e k t o a m e n d h i s o w n c o m p l a i n t f o r d i v o r c e w h e r e h e n e v e r

m e n t i o n e d t h e p r e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t

. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s m a d e c l e a r t h a t “ [ e ] v ery litigant is- 11

-

entitle d t o be told by his ad versary in plain and explicit la ngu age what is his gr ound of complaint

or defense

. ” T e d L a n s i n g

, 2 2 1 V a

. a t 1 1 4 1 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ( q u o t i n g Potts , 165 Va. a t 207 ) ; s e e

a l s o Blizzard v. Saly e r

, 125 Va . 604, 61 0 (1919) ( h o l d i n g t h a t “ if th e appe llants were en titl ed t o

the protec t io n o f the reg istry statute aforesai d, that was a matter of defense to the benefit of

which they could entitle themselves o nly by affirmative pleading, setting up such de f ense a nd by

pro of sustaining such plead ing ” ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) )

. T h u s

, w h e n t h e t r u e n a t u r e o f a l i t i g a n t ’ s

d e f e n s e i s a c o n t r a c t u a l r i g h t

, w e l l

- s e t t l e d V i r g i n i a l a w r e q u i r e s t h a t s u c h a d e f e n s e b e s t a t e d

p l a i n l y a n d e x p l i c i t l y i n a v a l i d p l e a d i n g

. S e e B l i z z a r d

, 1 2 5 V a

. a t 6 1 0

. H o w e v e r

, S t a r k d i d n o t

s t a t e “ i n p l a i n a n d e x p l i c i t l a n g u a g e ” a d e f e n s e t o D i n a r a n y ’ s c o u n t e r c l a i m b a s e d o n t h e

prenuptial a g r e e m e n t

. S e e T e d L a n s i n g

, 2 2 1 Va. a t 1 1 4 1

. I n f a c t

, h e d i d n o t e v e n f

i l e a n y

a n s w e r t o D i n a r a n y ’ s c o u n t e r c l a i m

, o r a s n o t e d s u p r a

, e v e r a m e n d h i s o w n c o m p l a i n t f o r

d i v o r c e

.

I n a d d i t i o n

, t h e r e c o r d s h o w s t h a t S t a r k d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e postnuptial

a g r e e m e n t i n e v i d e n c e

. I n f a c t

, S t a r k i s t h e party w h o m o v e d t o a d m i t t h e postnuptial a g r e e m e n t

i n e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l

. S t a r k a s k e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a c c e p t b o t h t h e p renuptial a g r e e m e n t a n d t h e

postnuptial a g r e e m e n t a s P l a i n t i f f ’ s E x h i b i t 3

. W h e n c o u n s e l f o r S t a r k d i d s o

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e

s a i d

, “ Well, just by admitt ing it, I ’ m not saying that I ’ m going t o enf orce it. Obviously , you two

are

. . . disputing a s to whethe r it is enforceable or n ot.

. . . I need to rev iew both agreements plus

all the evidence to determine whether it is enforceabl e [

. ] ” S t a r k ’ s c o u n s e l s u b s e q u e n t l y

r e i t e r a t e d

, “ I d o n ’ t h a v e a p r o b l e m w i t h t h a t c o m i n g i n

, ” a n d r e p e a t e d s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r

, “ A gain,

we don ’ t have a pr obl em with it coming in. ” A s t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s r e p e a t e d l y a d m o n i s h e d

,

“ It is improper for a litigant to invite error and take advantage of the situation c reated by her own

wro ng. ” Matthews v. Matthew s , 277 Va. 522 , 5 28 (2009) ; s e e a l s o R o w e v

. C o m m o n w e a l t h

,- 12

-

2 7 7 V a

. 4 9 5

, 5 0 1

- 0 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ( d e c l i n i n g t o r e a c h t h e m e r i t s o f a n a s s i g n m e n t o f e rr o r o n a p p e a l t o

t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t “ b e c a u s e R o w e i n v i t e d t h e v e r y e rr o r o f w h i c h h e n o w c o m p l a i n s ” )

.

C o n s i d e r i n g S t a r k ’ s f

i r s t a s s i g n m e n t o f e rr o r a g a i n s t t h i s b a c k d r o p

, w e c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e

t r i a l c o u r t erred b y a d m i t t i n g t h e postnuptial a g r e e m e n t i n e v i d e n c e

. B e c a u s e S t a r k n e v e r r a i s e d

t h e prenuptial a g r e e m e n t i n h i s c o m p l a i n t f o r d i v o r c e o r a m e n d e d h i s c o m p l a i n t t o c l a i m t h e

prenupt ial a g r e e m e n t governed t h e s e i s s u e s

– o r e v e n f i l e d a n a n s w e r t o D i n a r a n y ’ s c o u n t e r c l a i m

r a i s i n g i t

, S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e l a w i s c l e a r t h a t S t a r k c a n n o t n o w r e l y o n t h e prenuptial

a g r e e m e n t t o p r e v a i l o n t h e s e i s s u e s

. T h e r e f o r e

, w e d o n o t r e a c h S t a r k ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e

prenuptial a g r e e m e n t w a s e f f e c t i v e

– a n d c o n t r o l l e d t h e e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d s p o u s a l

s u p p o r t q u e s t i o n s b e f

o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, S t a r k a s k e d t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a t t r i a l t o

a d m i t t h e p o s t n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t

– a n d t o l d t h e t r i a l j u d g e o n m o r e t h a n o n e occasion a t t r i a l t h a t

h e h a d n o p r o b l e m w i t h i t s b e i n g a d m i t t e d

. S t a r k c a n n o t n o w o n a p p e a l a t t e m p t t o b e n e f i t b y

c l a i m i n g a s e rr o r t h a t w h i c h h e a s k e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o d o

. C o n s e q u e n t l y

, f o r a l l o f t h e s e r e a s o n s

,

w e c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d b y i n c l u d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ’ postnuptial a g r e e m e n t i n

e v i d e n c e

, a n d w e d o n o t o v e r t u r n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n o n S t a r k ’ s f i r s t a s s i g n m e n t o f e rr o r

.

B

. E q u i t a b l e D i s t r i b u t i o n

B o t h S t a r k a n d D i n a r a n y a s s i g n e rr o r t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l

p r o p e r t y

. “In reviewing an equitable dist ribution award on appea l, we have recognized that the

trial court ’ s job is a difficult one, and we rely heavily on t he disc retion o f the trial j udg e i n

weighin g t he many c o ns ide r at io ns and c ircumstances t hat are pr e s e nted in each case.” Wright v.

Wright

, 61 Va. App. 432, 449

- 50 (2013 ) (quoting Klei n v. Klein , 11 Va. Ap p. 155, 161 (1990) )

.

“Accordingly, ‘decisions co nc erning equitabl e distribution res t w ithin t he sound dis c re tion o f th e

tria l court [

. ] ’ ” I d

. at 450 (q uoting McDavid v

. M c D a v i d , 19 V a. A pp. 4 0 6

, 407

- 08 ( 1 9 9 4 ) )

. T h e

c i r c u i t c o u r t ’ s “ d i s c r e t i o n i s l i m i t e d o n l y i n t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t m u s t c o n s i d e r a l l o f t h e f a c t o r s- 13

-

i n C o d e § 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 3 ( E )

. ” Fadness v. Fadnes s

, 52 Va. App. 833, 842 (2008)

. “ If the ci r cu i t court

considers all the fact ors and bases its finding s on credible evidence, we will not disturb its

decision on appeal. ” I d

.

1

. S t a r k ’ s A p p e a l ( S t a r k ’ s A s s i g n m e n t o f E rr o r 4 )

S t a r k c o n t e n d s t h a t “ [ t ] h e t r i a l c o u r t e rr e d i n r u l i n g t h a t t h e f o r b e a r a n c e a m o u n t o w e d o n

t h e V i r g i n i a m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e s h a l l b e s p l i t e v e n l y b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s

. ” H e s u b m i t s t h a t b e c a u s e

D i n a r a n y “ had use of the entire hom e ” d u r i n g t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n

, s h e “ should have been

responsib le for ha lf of the mortgage as o ne of two j oin t owners of the home, and for the ot her

half of the mortgage as compensation for exclusive use of the husband’s half of the p roperty. ”

I n f a s h i o n i n g i t s e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n o r d e r

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d b o t h S t a r k ’ s

m o n e t a r y c o n t r i b u t i o n s a n d D i n a r a n y ’ s n o n

- m o n e t a r y c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e w e l l

- b e i n g o f t h e

f a m i l y

, n o t i n g t h a t S t a r k l a r g e l y p r o v i d e d f o r t h e f a m i l y f i n a n c i a l l y w h i l e D i n a r a n y l a r g e l y t o o k

c a r e o f t h e h o m e a n d t e n d e d t o t h e c h i l d r e n

. S e e C o d e § 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 3 ( E ) ( 1 )

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t f u r t h e r

f o u n d t h a t S t a r k f

i n a n c e d t h e d o w n p a y m e n t o n t h e M c L e a n h o m e w i t h h i s s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y

–

a n d t h a t h e m a d e p o s t

- s e p a r a t i o n m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s f r o m h i s s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y u n t i l t h e h o m e

w a s p l a c e d i n m o r t g a g e f o r b e a r a n c e

. S e e C o d e § 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 3 ( E ) ( 2 )

. How e v e r

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a l s o

f o u n d t h a t D i n a r a n y “ m a d e s u b s t a n t i a l n o n m o n e t a r y c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e acquisition a n d c a r e a n d

maintenance ” o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y

. F o r e x a m p l e

, s h e f o u n d t h e m a r i t a l h o m e

, w o r k e d w i t h t h e

r e a l t o r t o o b t a i n t h e h o m e

, a n d w o r k e d w i t h c o n t r a c t o r s o n k i t c h e n a n d b a t h r o o m r e n o v a t i o n s a t

t h e h o m e

. I d

. A f

t e r l a y i n g o u t i t s f

i n d i n g s o f f

a c t o n e a c h o f t h e s t a t u t o r y f a c t o r s

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t

o r d e r e d t h a t t h e M c L e a n h o m e “ s h a l l b e l i s t e d f o r s a l e a n d s o l d a s e x p e d i t i o u s l y as p o s s i b l e

. ”

T h e t r i a l c o u r t s p e c i f

i c a l l y o r d e r e d t h a t t h e n e t p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e w o u l d b e d i v i d e d s o a s t o

c r e d i t S t a r k f

o r h i s s o l e p a y m e n t s t o w a r d t h e m o r t g a g e p r i n c i p a l f r o m t h e t i m e o f s e p a r a t i o n u n t i l

t h e t i m e o f m o r t g a g e f

o r b e a r a n c e a n d t o r e i m b u r s e S t a r k f o r h i s d o w n p a y m e n t o n t h e h o m e- 14

-

u s i n g h i s s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y t o d o s o

. O n c e S t a r k i s r e i m b u r s e d f o r t h o s e c o n t r i b u t i o n s

, t h e

remaining p r o c e e d s m u s t b e s p l i t e q u a l l y b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s

. C o n s e q u e n t l y

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t

r easoned t h a t “ [ i ] f the forbe a rance agreem ent requires that the forbearanc e mortgage amounts be

pa id before, during, or a f ter the closing of t his property, the Wife and Husband shall b e equally

re sponsib le for making these payments. ”

I n s h o r t

, e v e n t h o u g h D i n a r a n y m a y h a v e h a d e x c l u s i v e u s e o f t h e M c L e a n h o m e d u r i n g

t h e p e r i o d o f s e p a r a t i o n

, S t a r k w a s c r e d i t e d b o t h f o r h i s p o s t

- s e p a r a t i o n m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s a n d

f o r t h e u s e o f h i s s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y f o r t h e d o w n p a y m e n t f

o r t h e p u r c h a s e o f t h e h o m e

, a n d t h e

t r i a l c o u r t ’ s e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e M c L e a n h o m e w a s b a s e d o n i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f e a c h o f

t h e s t a t u t o r y e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n factors u n d e r C o d e § 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 3 ( E )

. U n d e r t h e s e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, w e c a n n o t s a y that t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n b y c o n c l u d i n g t h a t a n y

l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e f o r b e a r a n c e s h o u l d b e s p l i t e v e n l y b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s

– j u s t a s t h e n e t p r o c e e d s

w o u l d b e s p l i t e v e n l y a f

t e r crediti ng S t a r k f

o r s e v e r a l m o n t h s o f p o s t

- s e p a r a t i o n m o r t g a g e

p a y m e n t s a n d f

o r h i s s e p a r a t e

- p r o p e r t y d o w n p a y m e n t

. B e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t “ consider [ e d ] a ll

the factors and base [ d ] its finding s on credible evidence, we will not disturb its decision on

appeal

. ” F a d n e s s

, 52 Va. App. a t 842

.- 15

- 2

. D i n a r a n y ’ s A p p e a l ( D i n a r a n y ’ s A s s i g n m e n t s o f E r r o r 5 a n d 6 ) 2

I n h e r f i f t h a n d s i x t h a s s i g n m e n t s o f e r r o r

, D i n a r a n y c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t “ erred

in not awarding the Wife’s share of a marital portion of the Husband’s US Army retirement

pension plan ” a n d “ erred in the marital share of the Husband’s T hr ift Savings Plan (TSP ) [

. ] ”

I n i t s f i n a l o r d e r

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d

, “ T h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a s t o t h e m a r i t a l

p o r t i o n o f H u s b a n d ’ s p e n s i o n

, o r i f a n y p o r t i o n o f t h i s a s s e t i s m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y

. ” T h e r e f o r e

, t h e

t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d

, “ A s i d e f r o m t h e T S P d i s t r i b u t i o n a b o v e

, t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l k e e p a n y a n d a l l

r e t i r e m e n t

, p e n s i o n

, I R A o r o t h e r f u n d s / b e n e f i t s c u r r e n t l y h e l d i n t h e i r n a m e

, a s t h e i r s o l e a n d

s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y

, w i t h n o c o n t r i b u t i o n f r o m t h e o t h e r p a r t y

. ” D i n a r a n y c o n t e n d s o n a p p e a l t h a t

t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n concludi ng i t c o u l d n o t d e t e r m i n e t h e m a r i t a l p o r t i o n o f Stark ’ s A r m y

r e t i r e m e n t f

r o m t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d a t t r i a l

. W e a g r e e

.

T h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t S t a r k a n d D i n a r a n y w e r e m a rr i e d i n

D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2

, w h i l e S t a r k s e r v e d i n t h e m i l i t a r y

, a n d t h a t S t a r k r e t i r e d f r o m t h e A r m y d u r i n g

t h e m a rr i a g e i n l a t e 2 0 1 6

. Neither t h e d a t e o f t h e m a rr i a g e n o r t h e d a t e o f S t a r k ’ s r e t i r e m e n t

f r o m t h e A r m y w e r e d i s p u t e d i n t h i s c a s e

. S t a r k ’ s a n s w e r s t o t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s f r o m D i n a r a n y

a l s o i n c l u d e d t h e f

o l l o w i n g sta tem ent : “ M y e a r n i n g capacity is high er than Firouzeh ’ s due t o my

work history. I served over 25 1⁄2 years as an Army officer, only the las t four of whic h wer e

2 D i n a r a n y ’ s t h i r d a n d fo urth a s s i g n m e n t s o f e r r o r c h a l l e n g e e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n

, b u t

s h e s t a t e s on b r i e f

,

Two issu es for equitable dist rib ut ion (Nos. 3 and 4) must be

conceded b e c ause the Wife’s previous counsel failed to pre sent

facts, do cum ents and /or a r gu men ts as evi dence during t he t r ial.

Th eref ore, a trial co urt’s abu se of discretion cann o t be found i n

these two equitable distributi on is sues beca use evidence was simply

not p r e sented at trial for the Court to consider.

Given D i n a r a n y ’ s e x p l i c i t w i t h d r a w a l o f t h e s e a s s i g n m e n t s o f e r r o r

, w e d o n o t r e a c h t h e m o n

a p p e a l

.- 16

-

se r ved while marrie d to her. ” T h u s

, S t a r k ’ s o w n a n s w e r t o a n i n t e r r o g a t o r y t h a t i s i n t h e r e c o r d

p l a i n l y d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t S t a r k a n d D i n a r a n y w e r e m a rr i e d f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y f

o u r y e a r s w h i l e

S t a r k s e r v e d i n t h e m i l i t a r y

.

I n e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n m a t t e r s

, C o d e § 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 3 ( A ) f i r s t r e q u i r e s t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o

c l a s s i f y p r o p e r t y a s m a r i t a l

, s e p a r a t e

, o r h y b r i d ( i

. e

. , p a r t m a r i t a l a n d p a r t s e p a r a t e )

. “ W h e r e

p r o p e r t y i s c l a s s i f

i e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t a s ‘ p a r t m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y a n d p a r t s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y

, ’ t h e

t r i a l c o u r t m u s t d e t e r m i n e t h e m a r i t a l s h a r e o f s u c h p r o p e r t y

. ” S t a r r v

. S t a r r

, 7 0 V a

. A p p

. 4 8 6

,

4 8 8 ( 2 0 1 9 ) ( q u o t i n g C o d e § 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 3 ( A ) ( 3 ) )

. I n t u r n

, C o d e § 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 3 ( G ) ( 1 ) d e f i n e s t h e

“ m a r i t a l s h a r e ” o f a r e t i r e m e n t i n t e r e s t a s “ that portion of the total interest, the right to which was

earned d uring the ma rriage an d bef ore t he last sepa ration of th e p arties , if at such time or

thereafter at least one of the parties intended that th e separation be permane nt. ”

U n d e r V i r g i n i a l a w

, i t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e m a r i t a l p o r t i o n o f

a d e f i n e d b e n e f

i t p l a n i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d f

r o m t h e s e p a r a t e p o r t i o n b y

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a f

r a c t i o n

, t h e n u m e r a t o r o f w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s t h e

t o t a l t i m e t h e p e n s i o n e r i s e m p l o y e d d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ’ m a rr i a g e

,

a n d t h e d enomi nato r o f w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s t h e t o t a l t i m e t h e

p e n s i o n e r i s e m p l o y e d t h r o u g h t h e d a t e o f retirement

.

S t a rr

, 7 0 V a

. A p p

. a t 4 9 2 ( q u o t i n g M a n n v

. M a n n

, 2 2 V a

. A p p

. 4 5 9

, 4 6 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) )

. T h u s

, “ a t r i a l

c o u r t i n V i r g i n i a d e t e r m i n e s t h e m a r i t a l s h a r e o f m i l i t a r y r e t i r e m e n t b y a p p l y i n g t h e

m a r i t a l

- s h a r e f

r a c t i o n

. ” I d

. a t 4 9 6

.

B e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e b e t w e e n S t a r k a n d

D i n a r a n y o v e r l a p p e d w i t h S t a r k ’ s m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y f

o u r y e a r s

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t

c l e a r l y e rr e d i n f

i n d i n g “ [ t ] h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a s t o t h e m a r i t a l p o r t i o n o f H u s b a n d ’ s

p e n s i o n

, o r i

f a n y p o r t i o n o

f t h i s a s s e t i s m a r i t a l p r

o p e r t y

. ” ( E m p h a s i s adde d )

. I n s h o r t

, t h e

r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e c o m p e l s u s t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t w a s p l a i n l y w r o n g i n f i n d i n g t h a t

t h e r e w a s n o t e n o u g h e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r “ a n y p o r t i o n ” o f S t a r k ’ s A r m y

p e n s i o n i s m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y b e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t h a d all o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o a p p l y- 17

-

t h e m a r i t a l

- s h a r e f

r a c t i o n

. S e e S t a rr

, 7 0 V a

. A p p

. a t 4 9 6 ; C o d e § 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 3 ( G )

. T h e r e f o r e

, w e

r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n a n d r e m a n d f o r i t t o c a l c u l a t e t h e m a r i t a l p o r t i o n o f S t a r k ’ s

A r m y r e t i r e m e n t p e n s i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e m a r t i a l

- s h a r e f r a c t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d b y V i r g i n i a

l a w

. S e e i d

. 3 A f

t e r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e m a r i t a l s h a r e

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d t h e n m a k e a n e q u i t a b l e

d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l s h a r e between t h e h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e

– w i t h t h e w i f

e r e c e i v i n g u p t o

b u t n o t m o r e t h a n 50 % o f t h e m a r i t a l s h a r e o f the hu s band ’ s A r m y p e n s i o n

. S e e C o d e

§ 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 3 ( G ) ( 1 )

.

C

. S p o u s a l S u p p o r t

S t a r k n e x t a r g u e s i n h i s A s s i g n m e n t s o f E r r o r 2 a n d 3 t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s

d i s c r e t i o n b y a w a r d i n g s p o u s a l s u p p o r t t o D i n a r a n y because D i n a r a n y f a i l e d t o m e e t h e r b u r d e n

o f p r o v i n g a n e e d f

o r s p o u s a l s u p p o r t

. H e a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e a m o u n t a n d l e n g t h o f d u r a t i o n o f

t h e a w a r d constitu ted a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

. I n D i n a r a n y ’ s a p p e a l

, s h e a s s i g n s e r r o r t o t h e t r i a l

c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n s r e l a t e d t o s p o u s a l s u p p o r t i n A s s i g n m e n t s o f E rr o r 1

, 2

, a n d 7

. D i n a r a n y a l s o

a r g u e s that t h e s p o u s a l s u p p o r t w a s w r o n g l y c o m p u t e d

– b u t a s t o o l i t t l e a n d n o t l o n g e n o u g h i n

d u r a t i o n

. S h e a l s o m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d b y e r r o n e o u s l y i m p u t i n g i n c o m e t o h e r

a f t e r f i n d i n g t h a t s h e w a s v o l u n t a r i l y u n e m p l o y e d

.

H o w e v e r

, i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t o m a k e a n a w a r d o f s p o u s a l s u p p o r t a n d i n c a l c u l a t i n g

t h e a m o u n t a n d d u r a t i o n o f t h e a w a r d

, C o d e § 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 1 ( E ) ( 8 ) r e q u i r e s t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o

c o n s i d e r “ [ t ] h e p r o v i s i o n s m a d e w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y u n d e r [ C o d e ] § 2 0

- 1 0 7

. 3

, ”

t h e e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n s t a t u t e

. B e c a u s e w e h e r e r e v e r s e i n p a r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s a w a r d o f

3 I n s u p p o r t o f h e r a s s i g n m e n t o f e rr o r c h a l l e n g i n g t h e v a l u a t i o n o f Stark ’ s Th rift S avings

Plan ( T S P )

, D i n a r a n y o f

f e r s n o a r g u m e n t o n b r i e f a b o u t w h a t t h e c o r r e c t v a l u a t i o n o f Stark ’ s

T S P w o u l d h a v e y i e l d e d

. A t o r a l a r g u m e n t b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t

, w h e n a s k e d s p e c i f i c a l l y a b o u t h e r

a s s i g n m e n t o f e rr o r r e l a t e d t o Stark ’ s T S P

, c o u n s e l f o r D i n a r a n y s t a t e d

, “ O u r a s s i g n m e n t o f e rr o r

o n t h e r e t i r e m e n t i s c o n f

i n e d t o t h e U

. S

. A r m y r e t i r e m e n t p e n s i o n p l a n

. ” T h u s

, t h i s C o u r t d o e s

n o t r e a c h D i n a r a n y ’ s s i x t h a s s i g n m e n t o f e rr o r a s i t i s now wa ive d

. S e e R u l e 5 A : 2 0 ( e )

.- 18

-

e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n

, o u r c a s e l a w i s c l e a r t h a t

, o n r e m a n d

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l a l s o h a v e t o

t h o r o u g h l y r e a s s e s s i t s s p o u s a l s u p p o r t a w a r d a n d d u r a t i o n

. S e e

, e

. g

. , R o b i n s o n v

. R o b i n s o n

, 4 6

V a

. A p p

. 6 5 2

, 6 7 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( e n b a n c ) ; s e e a l s o D i x o n v

. D i x o n

, 7 1 V a

. A p p

. 7 0 9

, 7 2 2 ( 2 0 2 0 )

.

T h e r e f o r e

, w e d o n o t r e a c h e i t h e r p a r t y ’ s a s s i g n m e n t s o f e rr o r d e a l i n g w i t h w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l

c o u r t c o rr e c t l y d e c i d e d s p o u s a l s u p p o r t a n d t h e d u r a t i o n o f i t b e c a u s e w e h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t

w i l l h a v e t o rea sse ss s p o u s a l s u p p o r t a n d i t s d u r a t i o n o n r e m a n d a n y w a y

.

D

. A t t o r n e y ’ s F e e s

I n h e r f i n a l a s s i g n m e n t o f e r

r o r

, D i n a r a n y c h a l l e n g e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s a l l o c a t i o n o f

a t t o r n e y ’ s f

e e s

. B o t h p a r t i e s a l s o r e q u e s t a p p e l l a t e a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s

.

“[A]n award of attorn ey ’ s fees and costs is a matter for the tri al court ’ s sound discreti on

after c o nsidering the circumstances and equities of the entire case.” Jones v. Gate s , 68 Va. App.

100, 105 (2017) ( quoting Mayer v

. C o r s o

- M a y e r , 62 Va . Ap p. 7 1 3

, 731 ( 2 0 1 4 ) ). “Such d eci sio n

‘is reviewable on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.’ ” I d. (quoting Graves v. Gra ves , 4

Va. A pp. 326, 333 (1987)). “ An abuse of discre tion oc curs ‘ only when reasonable juris ts could

not differ ’ as to th e proper decision. ” Allen v. Allen , 66 Va. Ap p. 586 , 601 (2016) ( q u o t i n g

Brandau v. Brandau , 52 Va. App. 632, 641 (2008) )

. “Our use of this defer e ntial sta ndard of

review ‘rests on the v enerabl e belief that the judge closest t o the contest is the jud ge be s t able to

discern where the equities lie.’ ” Wynnyc ky v

. K o z e l

, 71 Va. Ap p. 1 7 7

, 193 ( 2 0 1 9 ) (quoting

Hamad v. Hamad , 61 Va. App. 593 , 607 (2013))

.

D i n a r a n y a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t “ erred in apportioning attorney’s fees awarded to the

Husband bet w ee n the Wife and her former counsel [

. ] ” S h e c l a i m s t h a t t h e a p p o r t i o n m e n t o f

a t t o r n e y ’ s f

e e s w a s “ i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t t h a t t h e W i f

e ’ s f o r m e r c o u n s e l i s

r e s p o n s i b l e f

o r n e e d l e s s l y incurring a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s b y h i s f

a i l u r e t o p r o d u c e t h e W i f e ’ s- 19

-

d i s c o v e r y d o c u m e n t s

. ” S h e t h e r e f o r e a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t “ e rr e d i n n o t o r d e r i n g [ h e r ]

f o r m e r c o u n s e l t o p a y m o s t o f t h e a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s a w a r d e d t o t h e H u s b a n d [

. ] ”

R u l e 4 : 1 2 ( b ) p e r m i t s a c o u r t i n w h i c h a n a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g t o m a k e s u c h o r d e r s “ a s a r e

j u s t ” w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f a i l u r e o f a p a r t y t o c o m p l y wit h a d i s c o v e r y o r d e r

. F u r t h e r

, t h e r u l e

e x p l i c i t l y p r o v i d e s t h a t “ t h e c o u r t must re q uire the party failing to obey t he ord er or t he attorney

advising him or both to pay the reasonable expe n se s, including attorney ’ s f ees, ca used by the

fa ilure, u nless the c ourt finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust

. ” A s t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s s t a t e d

, “ A trial

court generally exercises ‘ br oa d discretion ’ in determ ining the appropri ate sanctio n for failu re to

comply with an order relating to discovery. ” Walsh , 260 Va. a t 175 ( q u o t i n g W o o d b u r y

, 2 3 9

V a

. a t 6 5 4 )

. I n s u m

, R u l e 4 : 1 2 p r o v i d e s t h a t i t i s w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s r a n g e o f c h o i c e t o

a p p o r t i o n a t t o r n e y ’ s f

e e s b e t w e e n “ the pa rty failing to obey th e order or the attorney advising

him or both ” a s a s a n c t i o n

, a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e r e s t a y e d w i t h i n i t s a p p r o p r i a t e r a n g e of c h o i c e

b y c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e u n i q u e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e j u s t i f i e d a p p o r t i o n i n g a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s

b e t w e e n D i n a r a n y a n d h e r t r i a l c o u n s e l

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d i s c r e t i o n a r y d e c i s i o n t o a p p o r t i o n

a t t o r n e y ’ s f

e e s b e t w e e n D i n a r a n y a n d h e r c o u n s e l ( a f t e r t a k i n g t h e i s s u e o f a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s u n d e r

a d v i s e m e n t ) i s c e r t a i n l y n o t o u t s i d e t h e d i s c r e t i o n d u e a t r i a l j u d g e

, g i v e n “ the venerable b elief

that the judge closest to the contest is the jud ge bes t able to discern whe re the equiti e s lie. ”

Wynnycky

, 71 Va. Ap p. a t 193 (quoting Hamad , 61 Va. Ap p. a t 607 ). A l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t

a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t D i n a r a n y ’ s c o u n s e l significantly c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e d i s c o v e r y v i o l a t i o n s i n

t h i s c a s e

, w e s i m p l y c a n n o t s a y t h a t “ ‘ reasonable jurists c o uld not differ ’ as t o the proper

decision ” r e g a r d i n g t h e a p p o r t i o n m e n t o f a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s b e t w e e n D i n a r a n y a n d h e r t r i a l c o u n s e l

i n t h i s c a s e

. A l l e n

, 66 Va. App

. a t 601 ( q u o t i n g Brandau , 52 Va. App. a t 641 )

. W e t h e r e f o r e d o- 20

-

n o t d i s t u r b t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t o n a p p e a l

, a n d

, a ccordin gly, we affirm the trial cou rt o n

D i n a r a n y ’ s n i n t h a s s i g n m e n t o f e rr o r

.

F i n a l l y

, b o t h p a r t i e s r e q u e s t a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s i n c u r r e d i n t hese a p p e a l s

. This Court has

disc retion to grant or deny a ttorney ’ s fees incurred o n appeal. S e e Rule 5A:30(b ); see also

O ’ Loughlin v. O ’ Loughlin , 23 Va. A pp. 690, 695 (199 6). In ma k in g such a d et ermi nation, the

Court c o nsiders al l the equities of th e case. Rul e 5A:30(b)(3). After consid ering the record

before u s and all the equities of the case, we deny b o t h p a r t i e s ’ requ est s for appellate attorney ’ s

fees

. D i n a r a n y prevai ls on s e v e r a l of the is sues pr esen ted by th e s e c o m p a n i o n a ppeal s

, S t a r k

prevails on othe rs, and the arguments presented on most of the assignments of error are c e r t a i n l y

not frivolous. I n s h o r t

, i n e x erc ising our discretion to de t e r m i n e whether to awa rd appellate

a tt orney ’ s fees, we do no t be lieve that the eq ui t ies of this case justify such an award t o e i t h e r

p a r t y

. C o n s e q u e n t l y , we deny b o t h p a r t i e s ’ r equest s f o r a p p e l l a t e a t t o r n e y ’ s f

e e s

.

I I I

. C O N C L U S I O N

I n s h o r t

, f o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s

, we d o n o t d i s t u r b th e t rial court’s decision to include

the p a r t i e s ’ postnuptial agreement in evidence

. N e i t h e r d o w e f i n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n

r e q u i r i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o s h a r e e q u a l l y i n t h e p a y m e n t s r e q u i r e d b y t h e m o r t g a g e f o r b e a r a n c e o n

t h e m a r i t a l h o m e

. In addit i o n

, w e f i n d t h a t the trial court did not abus e i ts discretion i n i t s

a p p o r t i o n m e n t o f the attorney’s fees awarded to Stark between Dinarany and her trial counsel.

However, the cir cuit c ourt wa s plainly wrong in concluding that it could not determin e the

m a r ital portio n o f Stark’s Army retirement pen sio n from the record, because th e c i r c u i t court had

e n o u g h information i n t h e r e c o r d h e r e t o d e t e r m i n e the marital

- share fraction estab lished by

Vir ginia law. T h e r e f

o r e

, o n r e m a n d

, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h o u l d d e t e r m i n e t h e m a r i t a l s h a r e o f

S t a r k ’ s A r m y p e n s i o n a n d t h e n d e c i d e w h e t h e r t o a w a r d D i n a r a n y a p o r t i o n ( b u t n o t m o r e t h a n

5 0 % ) o f t h a t m a r i t a l s h a r e o f S t a r k ’ s A r m y p e n s i o n

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, b e c a u s e w e a r e r e v e r s i n g t h e- 21

-

c i r c u i t c o u r t o n o n e o f i t s d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d r e m a n d i n g t h i s c a s e f o r

r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h a t d e c i s i o n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n

, V i r g i n i a l a w r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e t r i a l

c o u r t m u s t a l s o r e a s s e s s i t s a w a r d o f s p o u s a l s u p p o r t u p o n r e m a n d

. T h e r e f o r e

, w e d o n o t d e c i d e

w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o rr e c t l y d e c i d e d s p o u s a l s u p p o r t ( a n d t h e d u r a t i o n o f i t ) b e c a u s e i t w i l l

h a v e t o r e a s s e s s i t s d e c i s i o n o n s p o u s a l s u p p o r t o n r e m a n d a n y w a y

. F o r a l l o f t h e s e r e a s o n s

, t he

judgment of the c i r c u i t co u rt is t herefore affirmed in part, reversed in p a rt, and reman ded for

further proceedings c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n

.

A f f i r m e d i n p a r t

, r e v e r s e d i n p a r t

, a n d r e m a n d e d

.