COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

JEANNE C. THEISMANN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0790-96-4 PER CURIAM 

 MARCH 4, 1997 

JOSEPH R. THEISMANN 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY 

Thomas D. Horne, Judge 

 (Mark A. Barondess; Erika B. Schiller; 

Sandground, Barondess, West & New, on 

briefs), for appellant. 

 (Michael A. Ward; Gannon, Cottrell & Ward, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Jeanne C. Theismann (wife) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court awarding attorney's fees and costs to Joseph R. 

Theismann (husband). Wife contends the award was unreasonable, 

unnecessary, and an abuse of discretion. Husband contends that 

the trial court erred in failing to use replacement value in 

determining the amount of the award. Upon reviewing the record 

and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of 

the trial court. Rule 5A:27. 

 "A trial court 'has the authority to hold [an] offending 

party in contempt for acting in bad faith or for willful 

disobedience of its order.'" Alexander v. Alexander, 12 Va. App. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

691, 696, 406 S.E.2d 666, 669 (1991) (citation omitted). "It is 

within the discretion of the trial court to include, as an 

element of damages assessed against the defendant found guilty of 

civil contempt, the attorneys' fees incurred in the investigation 

and prosecution of the contempt proceedings." Arvin, Inc. v. 

Sony Corp. of America, 215 Va. 704, 706, 213 S.E.2d 753, 755 

(1975) (citation omitted). 

 Under the terms of the parties' final decree of divorce, 

marked items on an attached exhibit were to "be transferred to 

[husband]." The artwork at issue, a painting by Red Skelton, was 

so marked. The decree also specifically stated that the "Red 

Skelton painting shall be transferred to [husband]." The 

painting was last seen in wife's possession at the parties' 

marital residence. Wife failed to transfer the painting, and it 

was subsequently lost. 

 Wife did not justify her failure to return the artwork to 

husband to the satisfaction of the trial court. See Alexander, 

12 Va. App. at 696, 406 S.E.2d at 669. In its September 7, 1995 

letter opinion, the trial court found wife in contempt for her 

failure to comply with its previous order directing her to 

transfer the painting to husband. 

 For purposes of equitable distribution, the parties had 

valued the painting at $3,500. The trial court allowed the 

parties to present additional evidence as to the artwork's value 

for purposes of determining the damages caused by wife's failure 
 3 

to abide by the decree. "The conduct of a trial is committed to 

the sound discretion of the trial court." Cunningham v. 

Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 358, 365, 344 S.E.2d 389, 393 (1986). 

We cannot say that the trial judge's decision to exercise his 

equitable authority and allow the parties an opportunity to 

present evidence as to the painting's value was an abuse of 

discretion. 

 According to the parties' experts, the painting was worth 

between $3,500 to $45,000. The trial court noted that the 

parties purchased the painting for $13,750 in 1992 and that at 

one time it was offered for sale for $27,500. While husband's 

expert testified that the replacement value was $45,000, we find 

no error in the court's refusal to accept that value, the 

underpinnings of which were demonstrably suspect. "[T]he finder 

of fact is not required to accept as conclusive the opinion of an 

expert." Godley v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 249, 251, 343 S.E.2d 

368, 370 (1986). While the court did not assign a specific value 

to the painting, it is clear from the court's total award that 

the court estimated its worth at approximately $5,000. That 

figure was well within the range of values supported by the 

credible evidence before the court. 

 Husband presented evidence that he incurred $5,600 in costs 

and $6,144.50 in attorney's fees in connection with the contempt 

hearing. The court found that "the fees of the expert and of 

[husband's counsel] are reasonable and are directly related to 
 4 

[wife's] contempt." 

 We find no abuse of discretion in the court's award to 

husband of damages, costs, and attorney's fees resulting from 

wife's failure to abide by the court's order. Accordingly, the 

decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. 

 Affirmed.