COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Annunziata and 

 Bumgardner 

MARGARET PINGLEY ARBUCKLE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1491-97-4 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 APRIL 28, 1998 

EZRA EARL ARBUCKLE 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CULPEPER COUNTY 

John R. Cullen, Judge 

 (Lois G. Pearson; Pearson and Pearson, P.C., 

on brief), for appellant. Appellant 

submitting on brief. 

 No brief or argument for appellee. 

 By decree July 9, 1996, the Circuit Court of Culpeper County 

granted a divorce and decreed equitable distribution of the 

parties' marital property. That order became final. Among other 

provisions, the court ordered Mrs. Arbuckle to pay $30,783.60 to 

her former husband. This represented half the value of the 

marital assets retained by her less various credits created when 

the court awarded possession of assets and payments of debts in 

order to carry out the equitable distribution scheme. Mr. 

Arbuckle was awarded ownership and possession of a 1994 Chevrolet 

Caprice valued at $11,500. That car was titled jointly, and 

there was a joint secured loan for its full value. Because Mr. 

Arbuckle was not financially responsible, the trial court ordered 

the wife to pay the loan and discharge the lien. Anticipating 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

her discharge of his half of the obligation, she was given a 

credit of $5,750 that reduced the actual sum she was to pay him. 

 Two days after the decree, Mr. Arbuckle wrecked the vehicle. 

It was a total loss. The insurance carrier paid the lien holder 

the full value of the vehicle, and the debt was canceled. Mr. 

Arbuckle moved for judgment against Mrs. Arbuckle for $5,750 

because she would not agree that she owed that sum in addition to 

the amount originally set as the balance due Mr. Arbuckle. The 

trial court granted the motion and ordered her to pay $5,750 in 

addition to the original sum of $30,783.60. Mrs. Arbuckle 

appeals this judgment order that directed her to pay an 

additional $5,750. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court. 

 Under the carefully formulated equitable distribution 

decree, the wife was given a credit for her anticipated payment 

of her husband's half of the car loan. When the insurance 

company paid the loan in full, it satisfied this obligation for 

Mrs. Arbuckle. She had received credit for paying the loan, but 

she had done nothing to discharge that obligation. In addition, 

she was no longer obligated to make payment. By getting credit 

in the decree and by getting the benefit of the insurance 

carrier's payment of the debt, she received $5,750 more than she 

was entitled to receive under the equitable distribution decree. 

 The action of the trial court was proper and necessary to 

adjust the award in light of the events that had occurred after 

its entry. The trial court's action was not an improper 

modification of a final award, but was rather a proper adjustment 
- 3 - 

necessary to carry out that which had been decreed previously. 

If the court had not modified its first order, Mrs. Arbuckle 

would have received the benefit twice. Having acquired 

jurisdiction, a court of equity may go on to establish rights and 

grant remedies. Erlich v. Hendrick Constr. Co., 217 Va. 108, 225 

S.E.2d 665 (1976). We find that the decree of the trial court 

properly adapted the equitable distribution decree, and we affirm 

the decision. 

 Affirmed.