COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Bumgardner 

MARSHALL WILBER WOODWARD, II 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2525-97-2 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 28, 1998 

LORETTA MAE WOODWARD 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY 

William H. Ledbetter, Jr., Judge 

 (George C. Rawlings, Jr., on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (R. Scott Pugh, on brief), for appellee. 

 Marshall Wilber Woodward, II, (husband) appeals the decision 

of the circuit court awarding $500 in monthly spousal support to 

Loretta Mae Woodward (wife). Husband contends that the trial 

court erred in awarding wife spousal support because wife was 

guilty of misconduct through post-separation cohabitation with 

another man. 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. 

See Rule 5A:27. 

 "The determination whether a spouse is entitled to support, 

and if so how much, is a matter within the discretion of the 

court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that 

some injustice has been done." Dukelow v. Dukelow, 2 Va. App. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

21, 27, 341 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1986). 

 In awarding spousal support, the chancellor 

must consider the relative needs and 

abilities of the parties. He is guided by 

the nine factors that are set forth in Code 

§ 20-107.1. When the chancellor has given 

due consideration to these factors, his 

determination will not be disturbed on appeal 

except for a clear abuse of discretion. 

Collier v. Collier, 2 Va. App. 125, 129, 341 S.E.2d 827, 829 

(1986). 

 The parties submitted evidence by way of deposition. The 

trial court found that wife was disabled, and received $1,086 in 

monthly disability retirement income. Husband earned $35,000 a 

year. Both parties worked throughout the marriage. Wife 

testified that she needed assistance to pay rent and utilities on 

an apartment for herself and the parties' minor child. 

 Husband sought and was granted a divorce on the ground of a 

one-year separation. He did not allege adultery as a ground for 

divorce. Wife failed to present sufficient evidence to 

corroborate her alleged grounds of adultery and cruelty. The 

trial court denied husband's motion to reconsider the award of 

spousal support on the basis of wife's misconduct in living with 

another man and in using drugs. 

 On appeal, husband has failed to provide citations to 

evidence in the record supporting his allegations that wife was 

guilty of misconduct. See Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 

56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Even if we assumed that husband 

presented sufficient evidence to support his allegations, that 
 3 

evidence would not preclude an award of spousal support to wife 

under Code § 20-107.1, if other evidence established that support 

was warranted. See generally Hollowell v. Hollowell, 6 Va. App. 

417, 419, 369 S.E.2d 451, 452 (1988) ("Had the legislature 

intended misconduct or illicit cohabitation to terminate spousal 

support, it could have so provided as it did with death and 

remarriage."). The trial court noted that it considered the 

statutory factors and the evidence before awarding wife $500 in 

monthly spousal support. Credible evidence established that 

wife's income was less than half of husband's income and that 

wife continued to need financial assistance to pay for housing 

and other expenses. Therefore, husband has failed to establish 

that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding spousal 

support to wife. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.