COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bumgardner, Ke lsey and Senior Judge Hodges

STEPHEN W. RUDD MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0694-03-2 PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 12, 2003 REGINA A. RUDD, A/K/A REGINA A. WINDSOR

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY George F. Tidey, Judge (Andrea C. Long; Boone, Beale, Cosby & Long, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (Regina A. Windsor, on brief, pro se ). Appellee subm itting on brief.
Stephen W. Rudd (husband) ap peals the circuit court’s deci sion reducing his monthly spousal support obligation to Regina A. Rudd (wif e) from $1,100 to $1,000 . On appeal, husband contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to reduce the obligation by a greater amount. Finding no error, we affirm. Background On appeal, we view the evidence and all reas onable inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party prevaili ng below. See McGuire v. McGuire , 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). The parties married on May 1, 1976 and were divorced by final decree dated June 21, 2001. The final decree awarded wife spousal support in the amount of $1,100 per month. In

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1- 413, this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - August 2002, husband filed a motion to reinstate, seeking a reduction in his support obligation, alleging two material changes in circumstances. First, husband testified he lived with his mo ther at the time of the divorce and has subsequently purchased a home with mortgage payments of $625 per month. Second, he argued that at the time of the spousal support award, wife did not work. She has since obtained full time employment. Wife’s income and expenses exhibit dem onstrated her net monthly income, including spousal support, was $2,717.54. Her claimed monthly expenses totaled $3,075.96. Wife testified she has worked full tim e since July 18, 2000, before the date of the original support award. She further testified her income has not increased since th at time. Husband listed his net monthly income as $2,492.52 with a monthly surplus of $958.19. Following a February 10, 2003 hearing, the tr ial court reduced husband’s obligation by $100 per month. Analysis A party seeking modification of spousal support pursuantto Code § 20-109, bears the burden of proving “both a material change in ci rcumstances 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 material change ‘must bear upon the financial needs of the dependent spouse or the ability of the supporting s pouse to pay.’” Street v. Street, 25 Va. App. 380, 386, 488 S.E.2d 665, 668 (1997) ( en banc ) (citation omitted). In additi on, “[t]he material change in circumstances must have occurred after the most recent judicial review of the award . . . .” Moreno v. Moreno, 24 Va. App. 190, 195, 480 S.E .2d 792, 795 (1997). “The determination whether a spouse is entitled to [areduction or increase in spousal] support, and if so how much, is a matter within the discretion of the [trial] c ourt and will not be distur bed on appeal unless it is- 3 - clear that some injustice has been done.” Dukelow v. Dukelow, 2 Va. App. 21, 27, 341 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1986). The trial court reviewed the evidence and determined the alleged changed circumstances did not warrant a significant decr ease in husband’s support obliga tion. The court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the support amount by only $100 per month. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court. Affirmed.