COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

WILLIAM GALE ANDERSON 

v. Record No. 2531-94-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 CHIEF JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON 

BETTY ANN ANDERSON MARCH 12, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SMYTH COUNTY 

Charles B. Flannagan, II, Judge 

 Robert I. Asbury (Robert I. Asbury, P.C., on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Nancyjean Bradford (Bradford & Poe, P.C., on 

brief), for appellee. 

 The equitable distribution award of $5,000 is affirmed. 

 Code § 20-107.3 in pertinent part provides: 

 In the case of the increase of value of separate 

property during the marriage, such increase in value 

shall be marital property only to the extent that 

marital property or personal efforts of either party 

have contributed to such increases, . . . . 

 For purposes of this subsection, the nonowning spouse 

shall bear the burden of proving that (i) contributions 

of marital property or personal effort were made and 

(ii) the separate property increased in value. Once 

this burden of proof is met, the owning spouse shall 

bear the burden of proving that the increase in value 

or some portion thereof was not caused by contributions 

of marital property or personal effort. 

 First we determine if the wife met her burden of proving 

that contributions of marital property or personal efforts were 

made. The wife testified that she did all the work, and paid 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

for, the following improvements: new carpeting in the living 

room and the hallways, new linoleum in the dining room and the 

kitchen, re-papering in the kitchen and a bathroom and painting 

in the living room, dining room, kitchen and bathroom. Mr. 

Anderson conceded that she paid for new carpeting but stated that 

he paid for installation. In either event improvements were made 

from one or the other's marital effort or marital income. Mr. 

Anderson admitted that he put in a furnace and a satellite dish, 

paid for with marital funds. Additionally, Mr. Anderson paid the 

mortgage, insurance and taxes from his marital income. Payments 

of $250 per month from November 13, 1986, until March 1992, are 

more than $16,125 for the time the parties were married. Thus, 

the evidence is uncontradicted that well in excess of $16,125 in 

marital funds plus the wife's marital efforts went into the home 

that is the husband's separate property. Even without the 

evidence of an increase in the marital property, we have evidence 

of a substantial reduction of the husband's separate indebtedness 

(the mortgage) and increase in the husband's separate equity 

using marital funds. 

 Next, we consider whether the wife met her burden of proving 

that the property increased in value. On cross-examination Mrs. 

Anderson was asked: "In your opinion did the repairs and 

improvements contribute to the increase in the value of the 

property?" Her answer was "In my opinion, yes." Also on crossexamination, the wife testified that the property had increased 

by $19,500. 
- 3 - 

 On direct examination Mrs. Anderson had testified that the 

assessed value of the property at the time of the marriage was 

$34,200 and at the time of separation was $53,700. This 

testimony was not objected to. However, when she sought to enter 

the tax tickets from which she obtained her information, there 

was an objection that the tax tickets were hearsay. These 

documents would have only been hearsay if offered to prove the 

opinion of the tax assessor as to the value of the property. 

Smith v. Woodlawn Construction Co., 235 Va. 324, 331-32, 368 

S.E.2d 699, 703-04 (1988). 

 The assessed value of the property is not opinion, but a 

fact which may be proven with official documents. Code 

§ 58.1-3280 requires that the property shall be assessed at "fair 

market value." Although assessed value may not equate to fair 

market value, assessed value is a factor one might consider in 

arriving at a property's fair market value. The trial court did 

not err in admitting the tax tickets as evidence of the home's 

increase in assessed value. 

 Furthermore, the husband conceded in his letter of May 31, 

1994 to the trial court that the property increased in value. He 

stated therein: "The increase in value of this separate property 

[the Sugar Grove property] during the marriage is separate 

property." 

 The totality of the evidence was such that the trial court 

could have inferred that the husband's separate property had 

increased in value between the time of the marriage and the time 
- 4 - 

of the separation due to use of marital funds and marital effort. 

 Certainly the trial court could have concluded that the husband 

used marital funds to decrease his separate debt while increasing 

his equity in the real estate. Because the evidence showed that 

marital funds in excess of $16,000 and marital effort were put 

into the husband's separate property and the husband thereby 

reduced his separate debt which increased his equity, we hold 

that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in making the 

$5,000 award, which was less than one-third of the marital funds 

alone put into the husband's separate property during the 

marriage. 

 The judgment appealed from is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.