COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

JERRY L. GENTRY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2222-97-3 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 28, 1998 

FAYE J. CAMPBELL 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AUGUSTA COUNTY 

Thomas H. Wood, Judge 

 (Ronald R. Tweel; Elizabeth P. Coughter; 

Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen & Tweel, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 (Victor V. Ludwig; Nelson, McPherson, 

Summers & Santos, on brief), for appellee. 

 Jerry L. Gentry appeals the decision of the circuit court 

denying his motion to reduce child support paid to Faye J. 

Campbell, and granting Campbell's motion to increase child 

support. Gentry contends that the trial court erred by failing 

to consider the uncontradicted testimony of his expert witness 

concerning the financial records of his corporation. 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. 

 Gentry sought to reduce his child support payment of $610.61 

by presenting evidence to support a downward deviation from the 

statutory guidelines. See Code §§ 20-108.1 and 20-108.2. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

Specifically, Gentry presented evidence relevant to Code 

§ 20-108.1(B)(5), "[d]ebts incurred for production of income," 

and Code § 20-108.1(B)(18), "[s]uch other factors, including tax 

consequences to each party, as are necessary to consider the 

equities for the parents and children." Gentry relied upon the 

testimony of a certified public accountant, who testified that 

there had been a change in the cash flow of appellant's business, 

of which appellant was the majority stockholder. 

 "The moving party in a petition for modification of support 

is required to prove both a material change in circumstances and 

that this change warrants a modification of support." 

Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 8 Va. App. 601, 605, 383 S.E.2d 28, 

30 (1989). The trial court found that there had been a material 

change in circumstances and that the change warranted an increase 

in support. 

 Gentry contends that the trial court erred by failing to 

accept the testimony of his expert witness, whose testimony 

Gentry contends was uncontradicted and unimpeached. We disagree. 

 The accountant testified that the cash flow of appellant's 

business reduced appellant's ability to pay child support. 

However, the accountant also testified that, to the best of his 

knowledge, appellant's 1996 draft tax return was accurate and 

would be filed without modification. That return showed Gentry's 

gross income for 1996 to be $51,917. In addition, a personal 

financial statement, dated September 12, 1995, and signed by 
 3 

Gentry, showed his net income to be $86,220. 

 The trial court was entitled to determine what weight to 

afford the testimony of Gentry's accountant. 

 It is well established that the trier of fact 

ascertains a witness' credibility, determines 

the weight to be given to their testimony, 

and has the discretion to accept or reject 

any of the witness' testimony. Further, the 

fact finder is not required to accept the 

testimony of an expert witness merely because 

he or she has qualified as an expert. In 

determining the weight to be given the 

testimony of an expert witness, the fact 

finder may consider the basis for the 

expert's opinion. 

Street v. Street, 25 Va. App. 380, 387, 488 S.E.2d 665, 668-69 

(1997) (en banc) (citations omitted). Other evidence supports 

the trial court's finding that Gentry's gross income was $52,000. 

 Because the trial court's finding was supported by credible 

evidence, we find no error. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.