COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

HAROLD W. POPPE 

v. Record No. 0284-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

DOROTHY D. POPPE AUGUST 29, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Thomas A. Fortkort, Judge 

 (Robert P. Dwoskin, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Mary S. Meade, on brief), for appellee. 

 Harold W. Poppe (husband) appeals the equitable distribution 

decision of the circuit court awarding certain property to 

Dorothy D. Poppe (wife). Husband raises a single issue on 

appeal: whether husband's incarceration should have been 

sufficient grounds to bar the trial court from entering a final 

order of equitable distribution. 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:27.1

 "In reviewing an equitable distribution award on appeal, we 

recognize that the trial court's job is a difficult one. 

Accordingly, we rely heavily on the discretion of the trial judge 

 

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

designated for publication. 

 1As husband was represented by counsel, no issues arise 

under Code § 8.01-9. See Dunn v. Terry, 216 Va. 234, 239-40, 217 

S.E.2d 849, 854 (1975). 
 2 

in weighing the many considerations and circumstances that are 

presented in each case." Artis v. Artis, 4 Va. App. 132, 137, 

354 S.E.2d 812, 815 (1987). 

 The Final Decree of Divorce and Equitable Distribution, 

entered August 24, 1994, demonstrates that husband was granted an 

extension until December 1, 1994 to present evidence relating to 

"any property items not previously ruled upon." Although husband 

was incarcerated, the record demonstrates that husband was 

present at the July 20, 1994 equitable distribution hearing and 

was represented by counsel. The record contains a letter husband 

filed on August 18, 1994, in which husband suggested that 

additional savings accounts existed. However, no additional 

evidence was presented and the Supplemental Decree of Equitable 

Distribution was entered on December 19, 1994. 

 Husband's counsel objected to entry of the final order "due 

to [husband's] continuing incarceration until Feb 1995." Husband 

argues, in essence, that the trial court was obliged to continue 

to grant continuances until husband was no longer incarcerated so 

that husband could personally examine his assets. "The grant or 

denial of a continuance lies within the sound discretion of the 

trial judge." Snurkowski v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 532, 535, 

348 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1986). Furthermore, "[a]fter a court has 

concluded an evidentiary hearing 'during which each party had 

ample opportunity to present evidence, it [is] within the court's 

discretion to refuse to take further evidence on this subject.'" 
 3 

Holmes v. Holmes, 7 Va. App. 472, 480, 375 S.E.2d 387, 392 

(1988) (citation omitted). 

 Husband has failed to demonstrate that the trial court 

abused its discretion in entering a final order. The court 

allowed husband ample opportunities to present evidence. 

Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.