COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons 

JUNE DYER MUMFORD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1240-99-1 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 

VAUGHN W. MUMFORD, JR. 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY 

Glen A. Tyler, Judge 

 (John W. Wescoat, on brief), for appellant. 

 (C. A. Turner, III, on brief), for appellee. 

 June D. Mumford (wife) appeals the equitable distribution 

decision of the circuit court. Wife contends that the trial court 

(1) abused its discretion in awarding wife $24,400 in marital 

assets and Vaughn W. Mumford, Jr. (husband) $84,600; and (2) erred 

by crediting husband with fifteen percent of the value of the 

marital residence as his separate property. 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 evidence on equitable distribution was received by the 

trial court in an ore tenus hearing. Wife was represented by 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
counsel, but failed to appear at the hearing and refused her 

counsel's request to be deposed. 

Under familiar principles we view [the] 

evidence and all reasonable inferences in 

the light most favorable to the prevailing 

party below. Where, as here, the court 

hears the evidence ore tenus, its finding is 

entitled to great weight and will not be 

disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or 

without evidence to support it. 

Martin v. Pittsylvania County Dep't of Social Servs., 3 Va. App. 

15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986). "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 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). 

Distribution of Marital Assets

 Wife does not contend that the trial court failed to 

consider the statutory equitable distribution factors, but 

instead argues that the court abused its discretion by awarding 

husband too great a share of the marital estate. We find no 

error. 

 There is no statutory presumption of equal distribution 

under Virginia law. See Papuchis v. Papuchis, 2 Va. App. 130, 

- 2 -
132, 341 S.E.2d 829, 830 (1986). Wife failed to appear for 

trial and presented no evidence concerning her rights to 

equitable distribution. What evidence was introduced concerning 

her contributions came predominantly through husband's 

testimony. He acknowledged that wife contributed monetarily to 

the marriage, and credited her with making sixty percent of the 

purchases for the flea market that they operated. 

 Husband brought assets exceeding $100,000 to the marriage, 

while wife brought only $4,000. Husband testified that he 

reimbursed wife for that $4,000 following the sale of one of his 

parcels of real estate. Husband used the proceeds from the sale 

of these parcels to purchase the property used for the flea 

market and to provide a down payment for the marital residence. 

The evidence supports the finding by the trial court that 

husband made the greater monetary contributions to the marriage. 

 The trial court also found that wife deserted the marriage 

"under very egregious circumstances." The evidence established 

that wife left the marital home when husband was in intensive 

care with a ruptured aneurysm of the aorta. He had additional 

serious health complications and remained hospitalized for three 

months. As a result of his poor health, husband could no longer 

work at the flea market as long as he did previously. Wife's 

desertion amounted to a negative nonmonetary contribution to the 

marriage, as it left husband unable to care for himself or to 

resume full operation of the flea market. See O'Loughlin v. 

- 3 -
O'Loughlin, 20 Va. App. 522, 527-28, 458 S.E.2d 323, 325-26 

(1995). 

 The trial court ruled that husband was entitled to the 

inventory from the flea market. Wife was now living in 

Tennessee and removed herself from the operation of the flea 

market. The trial court awarded wife the vehicle in her 

possession, one-half the household furnishings, and $20,399 as a 

monetary award for her one-half interest in the marital share of 

the marital residence. Wife was also assigned two debts arising 

from judgments docketed against her. Evidence supports the 

equitable distribution decision made by the trial court, and we 

find no error. 

Marital Residence

 Husband argues that wife failed to preserve any objection 

to the court's award of fifteen percent of the value of the 

marital residence to husband as his separate property. Wife 

argued below that husband failed to trace his contributions with 

sufficient specificity, then argued, in the alternative, that 

husband was entitled to no more than fifteen percent for his 

alleged separate contributions. When invited by the trial court 

to "bring . . . to my attention now" any legal mistakes, wife's 

counsel raised only the issue whether wife's fault should be 

considered in connection with the equitable distribution of the 

marital estate. Wife's counsel endorsed the decree "Seen and 

Objected To," with no objections noted. Having raised the issue 

- 4 -
in the closing argument before the trial court, wife 

sufficiently preserved her objection. See Chawla v. 

BurgerBusters, Inc., 255 Va. 616, 622-23, 499 S.E.2d 829, 832-33 

(1998). 

 The trial court found that husband proved he contributed 

$7,500 in separate funds towards the purchase of the marital 

residence and was entitled to recover fifteen percent of its 

equity as his separate property. See Code § 20-107.3(A)(3)(e). 

Husband presented proof supporting his claimed contributions of 

separate property. Wife did not present evidence contradicting 

husband's claim. We find sufficient evidence supported the 

finding of the trial court. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

- 5 -