COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Agee and Senior Judge Overton 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

VICKI R. MABIE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0729-01-4 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 MARCH 19, 2002 

RICHARD E. MABIE 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WARREN COUNTY 

John E. Westel, Jr., Judge 

 Richard L. Downey (Eric W. Trucksess; Law 

Offices of Richard L. Downey & Associates, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Michael V. Greenan for appellee. 

 Vicki R. Mabie (wife) appeals from a final decree of divorce 

from Richard E. Mabie (husband). The circuit court awarded wife 

support of $600 per month for a period of six years. On appeal, 

wife contends the trial court abused its discretion by (1) denying 

her request for permanent spousal support, and (2) failing to 

award a permanent reservation of rights to spousal support. For 

the reasons that follow, we affirm the decree, with the exception 

of the denial of a reservation of right for spousal support. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable 

inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.
prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 

391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). 

Procedural Background

 The parties married in January 1972, separated on April 18, 

1999, and were divorced by a final decree entered on February 

20, 2001. Three children were born to the couple, one of whom 

is under the age of eighteen. Wife requested permanent spousal 

support, and the court awarded her support for a period of six 

years. Wife also requested a reservation of right for support. 

Analysis

I. 

 Wife contends the trial court abused its discretion by not 

awarding her permanent spousal support. She argues the court 

failed to consider all the factors enumerated in Code 

§ 20-107.1(E) in its determination of spousal support. "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. 21, 

27, 341 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1986) (citations omitted). However, 

the trial court's discretion must not be exercised without 

reference to Code § 20-107.1, which "commands that, in order to 

exercise its discretion, '[t]he court shall . . . consider' the 

specific factors contained therein. Failure to do so is 

reversible error." Bristow v. Bristow, 221 Va. 1, 3, 267 S.E.2d 

- 2 -
89, 90 (1980) (citation omitted). In reviewing the disputed 

decision, "[w]e assume that the [court] followed the statutory 

mandate," and the trial judge need not assign a weight to each 

among the several factors, provided related evidence is before 

the court. McGinnis v. McGinnis, 1 Va. App. 272, 277, 338 

S.E.2d 159, 161 (1985). 

 The trial court clearly stated its decision was based upon 

the required factors. The court also indicated it considered 

the length of the parties' marriage, wife's earning capacity, 

and her present needs in its determination of the $600 monthly 

support award. The trial court considered the relevant factors 

listed in Code § 20-107.1, and we find no abuse of discretion in 

its award of limited spousal support to wife. 

II. 

 Wife argues the trial court abused its discretion by 

denying her request for a reservation of rights for support. 

Code § 20-107.1(D) provides: 

In addition to or in lieu of an award . . . 

the court may reserve the right of a party 

to receive support in the future. In any 

case in which the right to support is so 

reserved, there shall be a rebuttable 

presumption that the reservation will 

continue for a period equal to fifty percent 

of the length of time between the date of 

the marriage and the date of separation. 

Once granted, the duration of such a 

reservation shall not be subject to 

modification. 

- 3 -
 The parties were married for twenty-eight years, a factor 

which the trial court considered in its award of spousal 

support. The court provided wife with a reservation of right 

for support for a six-year period to run concurrently with the 

period support payments are due from husband. There was no 

evidence before the court rebutting the presumption that the 

reservation shall run for the period of time specified by 

statute. Accordingly, we remand the decree to the trial court 

for a modification to include a reservation of right to seek 

future modification for the statutorily prescribed time period. 

 Affirmed in part,

reversed in part,

and remanded.

- 4 -