COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

DENNIS GLEN GRAY BULLINS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2303-97-3 PER CURIAM 

 JUNE 2, 1998 

DREAMA DAWN WITT BULLINS 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CARROLL COUNTY 

Duane E. Mink, Judge 

 (James T. Ward, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Cheryl Watson Smith; G. Marshall Mundy; 

Mundy, Rogers & Frith, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Dennis Glen Gray Bullins appeals the decision setting the 

amount of spousal support paid to his wife, Dreama Dawn Witt 

Bullins. He contends that the trial judge erred by awarding wife 

more support than she sought. In a cross appeal, the wife 

contends that the trial judge erred by failing to award her 

attorney's fees. 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. 

 A commissioner in chancery heard the evidence and 

recommended $1,000 per month spousal support. The trial judge 

ordered the recommended amount. On appeal, we apply the 

following standards: 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 -2- 

 The commissioner's report is deemed to be 

prima facie correct. The commissioner has 

the authority to resolve conflicts in the 

evidence and to make factual findings. When 

the commissioner's findings are based upon 

ore tenus evidence, "due regard [must be 

given] to the commissioner's ability . . . to 

see, hear and evaluate the witness at first 

hand." Because of the presumption of 

correctness, the trial judge ordinarily must 

sustain the commissioner's report unless the 

trial judge concludes that it is not 

supported by the evidence. 

Brown v. Brown, 11 Va. App. 231, 236, 397 S.E.2d 545, 548 (1990) 

(citations omitted). 

 The wife's evidence proved that her monthly expenses totaled 

approximately $2,300, which included an estimated cost for 

replacing her ten-year-old car. At the commissioner's hearing, 

the wife testified that she ceased contributing ten percent of 

her salary to her 401(k) retirement plan because she could not 

afford to do so. She noted that she would incur additional costs 

for real estate taxes and insurance which she was not currently 

paying. She also testified that she could only afford to replace 

her vehicle "if [she] was tight with money" and "just cut down on 

some other things." 

 The commissioner found wife's listed expenses to be 

reasonable. Although the commissioner noted that the wife had 

expressed her thought that $750 would be sufficient spousal 

support, the commissioner determined that wife's gross monthly 

earnings were $1,264. Based on these considerations and the 

statutory criteria, the commissioner ruled that a spousal support 
 -3- 

award of $1,000 was appropriate. 

 The evidence supports the trial judge's adoption of the 

commissioner's recommendations. 

 In awarding spousal support, the chancellor 

must consider the relative needs and 

abilities of the parties. He is guided by 

the nine factors that are set forth in Code 

§ 20-107.1. When the chancellor has given 

due consideration to these factors, his 

determination will not be disturbed on appeal 

except for a clear abuse of discretion. 

Collier v. Collier, 2 Va. App. 125, 129, 341 S.E.2d 827, 829 

(1986). The evidence clearly proved that wife's monthly earnings 

fell approximately $1,000 short of her monthly expenses. Because 

the commissioner's award was based upon the statutory factors and 

was supported by the evidence, we find no error. 

Attorney's Fees

 An award of attorney's fees is a matter submitted to the 

sound discretion of the trial judge and is reviewable on appeal 

only for an abuse of discretion. See Graves v. Graves, 4 Va. 

App. 326, 333, 357 S.E.2d 554, 558 (1987). The key to a proper 

award of counsel fees is reasonableness under all the 

circumstances. See McGinnis v. McGinnis, 1 Va. App. 272, 277, 

338 S.E.2d 159, 162 (1985). The record indicates that the wife 

listed attorney's fees among her monthly expenses. In addition, 

the trial judge noted that wife used $12,000 from the parties' 

joint checking account to pay her expenses, which included legal 

fees. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the trial 

judge abused his discretion in refusing to award attorney's fees 
 -4- 

to wife. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

Affirmed.