COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

EDWIN EUGENE GELLETLY 

v. Record No. 1127-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

ELANA H. GELLETLY JANUARY 23, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Theodore J. Markow, Judge 

 (Thomas F. Coates, III; Susan L. Wright; Coates & 

Davenport, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Alfred L. Shilling, on brief), for appellee. 

 Edwin E. Gelletly (husband) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court ordering him to pay spousal support to Elana 

Gelletly (wife) and deciding other issues. Husband raises two 

issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court abused its 

discretion by refusing to terminate spousal support; and (2) 

whether the trial court abused its discretion by imputing income 

to husband. 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. 

Failure to Terminate Spousal Support

 Code § 20-109 provides that "[u]pon petition of either party 

the court may increase, decrease or terminate spousal support and 

maintenance that may thereafter accrue . . . as the circumstances 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

may make proper." "The moving party in a petition for 

modification of support is required to prove both a material 

change in circumstances and that this change warrants a 

modification of support." Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 8 Va. 

App. 601, 605, 383 S.E.2d 28, 30 (1989). "[T]he 'circumstances' 

which make 'proper' an increase, reduction or cessation of 

spousal support under Code § 20-109 are financial and economic 

ones." Hollowell v. Hollowell, 6 Va. App. 417, 419, 369 S.E.2d 

451, 452-53 (1988). 

 Husband contends that wife had not demonstrated a need for 

continued spousal support and had failed to seek suitable 

full-time employment. The trial court found that wife had a 

reduced need for support since the last hearing and reduced the 

support payments by $200 a month. Wife was working approximately 

seventeen and a half hours a week, and presented evidence that 

she had sought full-time employment. Wife's ability to seek 

greater employment continued to be hampered by discomfort from 

two ruptured discs. Wife had also suffered two accidents and had 

broken her leg, in the intervening period. 

 As credible evidence supports the trial court's determination that wife continued to need spousal support, we cannot 

say that the court abused its discretion in refusing to terminate 

support. 

Imputation of Income

 Husband contends that he was unable to pay any support, that 
 3 

he had attempted to find suitable work, and that the trial court 

erred by imputing income to him. The trial court found that 

husband's decision to leave his full-time employment with its 

salary of $85,000 was a significant change in circumstances since 

the last hearing. However, the court also found that husband was 

responsible for the change because "[h]e jumped from a place of 

safety into a dry hole." The court imputed income to husband at 

his former salary level. The trial court ruled that the changed 

circumstances warranted a $200 a month decrease in, but not the 

elimination of, husband's spousal support obligation. 

 Husband took a cut in pay when he left his former 

employment. Subsequently, husband lost his position with his new 

employer. Husband testified that he had sought employment, but 

had not worked since losing his job in December 1994. Husband 

admitted he had not looked for positions paying in the $25,000 

range because 

 when somebody looks at my resume, and they 

say, well, this is [sic] guy has owned four 

or five companies. He is an $85,000 a year 

guy. He does this, that and the other, how 

long is he really going to work for me. If I 

go in here and teach him my job for $25,000, 

and, you know, when he gets a $40,000 job, he 

is walking, and we have wasted a lot [of] 

time. Then when he gets a $40,000 job, he 

will find a $50,000 job, and he is walking 

. . . . 

 The party who incurs a voluntary reduction of income, even 

if done in good faith, also bears the associated risks. 

Antonelli v. Antonelli, 242 Va. 152, 155-56, 409 S.E.2d 117, 119-
 4 

20 (1991). That party cannot then assert lack of income as 

grounds for eliminating support. Id. Although husband had no 

income, he voluntarily left a job he held for seven years, with 

its high salary, for a job with a lower salary and greater risks. 

 The fact that the new job fell short of his expectations did not 

relieve husband of his pre-existing spousal support obligations. 

 Therefore, we find the trial court's decision is supported by 

credible evidence and is not an abuse of discretion. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.