COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

STEPHEN CARL IRICK 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0156-96-1 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 15, 1997 

JOAN GOODSON IRICK 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON 

Christopher W. Hutton, Judge 

 (John E. Robins, Jr., on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Anthony S. Mulford; Davis & Brynteson, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Stephen Carl Irick (husband) appeals the equitable 

distribution decision of the circuit court. Husband contends 

that the trial court erred by accepting the recommendation of the 

commissioner in chancery to award Joan Goodson Irick (wife) the 

parties' jointly owned securities and $5,000. 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. 

 The evidence was heard by the commissioner in chancery. A 

hearing was held on the parties' exceptions to the commissioner's 

report, but the record on appeal contains neither a transcript 

nor written order memorializing that hearing. A final decree 

approving the commissioner's report, as modified pursuant to the 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

hearing on the parties' exceptions, was entered on December 18, 

1995. 

 The commissioner's report is deemed to be 

prima facie correct. The commissioner has 

the authority to resolve conflicts in the 

evidence and to make factual findings. When 

the commissioner's findings are based upon 

ore tenus evidence, "due regard [must be 

given] to the commissioner's ability . . . to 

see, hear and evaluate the witness at first 

hand." Because of the presumption of 

correctness, the trial judge ordinarily must 

sustain the commissioner's report unless the 

trial judge concludes that it is not 

supported by the evidence. 

Brown v. Brown, 11 Va. App. 231, 236, 397 S.E.2d 545, 548 (1990) 

(citations omitted). This Court must affirm the trial court's 

decision unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to 

support it. See McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 2 Va. App. 463, 

466-67, 346 S.E.2d 535, 536 (1986). 

 The commissioner considered the statutory factors and the 

evidence before making his recommendations. He noted that both 

parties contributed monetarily to the welfare of the family, 

although husband was the primary wage earner. All assets owned 

by the parties at the time of the hearing were marital assets. 

There was evidence that the marital residence needed $18,000 in 

repairs, and that, while husband had maintained the house, "his 

repairs were slipshod and incomplete." Wife testified that the 

only source of heat for the house was a small space heater in the 

wall and there was no heat in the dining room or living room. 

There was evidence that husband used the proceeds from the sale 
 3 

of the parties' securities to pay off car loans and other marital 

debts, as well as to provide himself with living expenses during 

the post-separation period. 

 Husband was awarded two vehicles valued at approximately 

$4,600, while wife was awarded one vehicle worth $3,000. The 

parties each retained a one-half interest in the marital 

residence, and wife received one-half of the marital share of 

husband's retirement. Wife received the tangible personal 

property in the home, valued at $3,250, and the parties' 

securities, with an approximate value of $7,490. Husband also 

was ordered to pay wife $5,000 within six months. 

 While wife received somewhat more than half the value of the 

parties' personal and intangible property, that fact is not in 

itself a sufficient ground to reverse an equitable distribution 

award. "Virginia's statutory scheme of equitable distribution 

does not have a presumption favoring an equal distribution of 

assets." Alphin v. Alphin, 15 Va. App. 395, 404, 424 S.E.2d 572, 

577 (1992). Based on the record before us, we cannot say that 

the trial court's award was plainly wrong or without evidence to 

support it. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.