COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

RONALD W. TSCHIPPERT 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0981-96-4 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 26, 1996 

ELIZABETH M. TSCHIPPERT 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY 

Thomas D. Horne, Judge 

 (Ronald W. Tschippert, pro se, on brief). 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Ronald W. Tschippert appeals the decision of the circuit 

court awarding Elizabeth M. Tschippert $25,000 as an equitable 

distribution monetary award. Husband contends that the trial 

court erred by failing to grant him a proportionate credit upon 

its revaluation of wife's 401(k) account. Upon reviewing the 

record and opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without 

merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the 

trial court. Rule 5A:27. 

 On a prior appeal to this Court, we reversed the trial 

court's initial equitable distribution decision valuing wife's 

401(k) account and classifying as marital property husband's 

post-separation contributions to a joint checking account. 

Tschippert v. Tschippert, No. 2096-94-4 (Va. Ct. App. June 13, 

1995). We affirmed all other issues. We remanded the case and 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

directed the trial judge to "reconsider the monetary award in 

light of his decisions regarding the checking account funds and 

the 401(k) account." Id. at 8. 

 On remand, the trial court received additional evidence. 

Based upon the new evidence, the trial court found that 

approximately $12,000 in the joint checking account was traceable 

as husband's separate property. The most current value of wife's 

401(k) account was $78,822, or $33,038 more than the value used 

by the court at the time of the initial decision. Based upon the 

reclassification of the funds in the joint checking account, the 

trial court credited $12,000 of the monetary award to husband, 

reducing the amount to be paid to $13,000. No additional 

modification to the award was made based upon the increased value 

of the 401(k) account. 

 Husband contends that the trial court was required to retain 

the prior equitable distribution share of fifty-two percent for 

wife and forty-eight percent for him, and to leave unchanged its 

previous determination that eighty percent of wife's 401(k) 

account was marital property. According to husband's argument, 

the increased value of wife's 401(k) account required awarding 

him an additional credit of $12,686 against the monetary award. 

 "Fashioning an equitable distribution award lies within the 

sound discretion of the trial judge and that award will not be 

set aside unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to 

support it." Srinivasan v. Srinivasan, 10 Va. App. 728, 732, 396 
 3 

S.E.2d 675, 678 (1990). "Unless it appears from the record that 

the trial judge has not considered or has misapplied one of the 

statutory mandates, this Court will not reverse on appeal." 

Ellington v. Ellington, 8 Va. App. 48, 56, 378 S.E.2d 626, 630 

(1989). 

 The evidence indicated that wife made post-separation 

contributions to her 401(k) account. In seeking to impose a 

claim on the increased value of wife's 401(k) account, husband 

drew no distinction between increases attributable to these 

contributions, which are wife's separate property, and increases 

attributable to earnings on the marital portion of the account. 

Code § 20-107.3(A). "'[T]he burden is always on the parties to 

present sufficient evidence to provide the basis on which a 

proper determination can be made, and the trial court in order to 

comply . . . must have the evidence before it . . . to grant or 

deny a monetary award.'" Bowers v. Bowers, 4 Va. App. 610, 617, 

359 S.E.2d 546, 500 (1987) (citation omitted). In the absence of 

evidence with which to make a distinction, we find no error on 

the part of the trial court in failing to credit husband with an 

additional interest in wife's 401(k) account. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.