COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

SAMUEL VICTOR PALMER 

v. Record No. 1214-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

EDNA LEE PALMER MAY 14, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY 

George F. Tidey, Judge 

 James Emmett Anderson for appellant. 

 Harry P. Anderson, Jr., for appellee. 

 Edna Lee Palmer (wife) and Samuel Victor Palmer (husband) 

were divorced by decree of the trial court which retained 

jurisdiction to thereafter "adjudicate the remedies provided by 

. . . Code [§§] 20-107.1, 107.2 and 107.3" and "to award counsel 

fees and costs . . . ." These remaining issues were resolved by 

a further order which allocated certain marital property and 

debts between the parties, vested physical custody of their 

infant child in wife, fixed the related child support 

obligations, and awarded wife spousal support and counsel fees. 

Husband challenges each ruling on appeal. For those reasons 

hereinafter set forth, we reverse in part and affirm in part. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and a 

recitation of the facts is unnecessary to this memorandum 

opinion. "Upon familiar principles, we review the evidence on 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

appeal in the light most favorable to . . . the party prevailing 

below." Cook v. Cook, 18 Va. App. 726, 731, 446 S.E.2d 894, 896 

(1994). 

 EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION 

 "[I]n reviewing an equitable distribution award, we rely 

heavily on the trial judge's discretion in weighing the 

particular circumstances of each case." Aster v. Gross, 7 Va. 

App. 1, 8, 371 S.E.2d 833, 837 (1988). Accordingly, we defer to 

the chancellor's resolution of the conflicting equities and will 

upset an award only if unsupported by the evidence or the result 

of an abuse of discretion or failure to follow statutory mandate. 

Banagan v. Banagan, 17 Va. App. 321, 326, 437 S.E.2d 229, 231-32 

(1993) (citations omitted). 

 Here, the record discloses a $50,438 IRS lien on the marital 

home. However, the trial court, without support in the record, 

concluded that "a realistic settlement of the lien would be 

approximately $20,000."1 This determination infected the related 

equitable distribution with error, necessitating a 

reconsideration by the trial court of the parties' respective 

interests pursuant to Code § 20-107.3. 

 On remand, although the trial court need not assign a weight 

to each factor prescribed by Code § 20-107.3, we caution that it 

must be guided by the statute in fashioning a proper award. 

 

 1Because we reverse and remand on this issue, we decline to 

specifically address husband's additional challenges to the 

award. 
- 3 - 

 CUSTODY 

 When addressing matters concerning a child 

. . . the paramount consideration of a trial 

court is the child's best interests. On 

review, "[a] trial court is presumed to have 

thoroughly weighed all the evidence, 

considered the statutory requirements, and 

made its determination based on the child's 

best interests." Furthermore, the evidence 

is viewed in the light most favorable to the 

prevailing party below and its evidence is 

afforded all reasonable inferences fairly 

deducible therefrom. "In matters of a 

child's welfare, trial courts are vested with 

broad discretion in making the decisions 

necessary to guard and to foster a child's 

best interests." The trial court's judgment, 

"when based on evidence heard ore tenus, will 

not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly 

wrong or without evidence to support it." 

Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 

128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991) (citations omitted); see Code 

§§ 20-124.1 through 20-124.3. 

 Here, the trial court vested legal custody of the child in 

both parents, "with [wife] having the primary physical and 

residential custody of the child and [husband] having liberal and 

reasonable visitations . . . ." The court noted a "concern[] 

about the inability of the parties to communicate" but concluded 

that "joint custody should be attempted in fostering the best 

interest of [the child]." The resulting custodial arrangement 

comports with Code §§ 20-124.1 through 20-124.3. 

 Our review of the record discloses ample evidence to support 

the trial court's order, without suggestion of an abuse of 

discretion.2

 

 2Husband's contention that the trial court "recant[ed]" an 

earlier ruling is without merit. 
- 4 - 

 CHILD SUPPORT 

 In determining an appropriate award of child support, "the 

court shall consider all evidence presented relevant to any 

issues joined in that proceeding," and the "decision . . . shall 

be rendered upon the evidence relevant to each individual case." 

 Code § 20-108.1(B). "However, there shall be a rebuttable 

presumption . . . that the amount of the award which would result 

from the application of the guidelines set out in Code § 20-108.2 

is the correct amount of child support . . . ." Id. Deviation 

is permissible upon consideration of specific statutory factors, 

if accompanied by "written findings in the order . . . that the 

. . . guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular 

case." Id.

 Here, in computing the parties' support obligations pursuant 

to Code § 20-108.2, the trial court assigned monthly "gross 

income" to husband of $2,300, without evidence to support this 

finding. See Code § 20-108.2(C). The statutory formula 

correlates the gross income of the parents, the amount of the 

support award, and the respective obligation of each parent. 

Code § 20-108.2. Thus, attribution of an incorrect gross income 

component to husband resulted in an erroneous computation of his 

support obligation, an error which requires remand. 

 SPOUSAL SUPPORT 

 Code § 20-107.1 requires the court to consider certain 

enumerated circumstances in ascertaining an award of spousal 
- 5 - 

support, if any. "This does not mean that the trial court is 

required to quantify or elaborate exactly what weight . . . it 

has given to each . . .," provided "the court's findings . . . 

have some foundation based on the evidence presented." Woolley 

v. Woolley, 3 Va. App. 337, 345, 349 S.E.2d 422, 426 (1986). 

 Because our disposition of several issues subject of this 

appeal impact upon circumstances relevant to spousal support, we 

must also reverse and remand the instant award for 

reconsideration by the trial court, guided by the provisions of 

Code § 20-107.1.3

 

 ATTORNEY'S FEES 

 The trial court will doubtless revisit attorney's fees in 

the context of other issues remanded by this decision, and we, 

therefore, reverse and remand the present award to permit such 

further consideration. See Westbrook v Westbrook, 5 Va. App. 

446, 458, 364 S.E.2d 523, 530 (1988) (citations omitted); Code 

§ 20-79. 

 Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed in 

part and affirmed in part, and the cause is remanded for further 

proceedings in accordance with this opinion. 

 Affirmed in part, 

 reversed in part, 

 

 3Should the issue of "lump sum" spousal support arise on 

remand, the unique character of such relief must be considered by 

the trial court. Code § 20-107.1; Blank v. Blank, 10 Va. App. 1, 

389 S.E.2d 723 (1990); Mosley v. Mosley, 19 Va. App. 192, 450 

S.E.2d 161 (1994). 
- 6 - 

 and remanded.