COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

GREGORY O. WIGGLESWORTH 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2498-96-2 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 22, 1997 

CARRIE F. WIGGLESWORTH 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY 

William H. Ledbetter, Jr., Judge 

 (Joseph J. Ellis; Ellis & Ellis, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 (Carrie F. Wigglesworth, pro se, on brief). 

 Gregory O. Wigglesworth (husband) appeals the decision of 

the circuit court reserving spousal support for Carrie F. 

Wigglesworth (wife). Husband argues that the trial court erred 

in reserving future spousal support because wife failed to 

request a reservation of support in her pleadings. 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. Rule 5A:27. 

 Wife was awarded spousal support by order of the juvenile 

and domestic relations district court. Husband commenced this 

action in the circuit court, seeking to terminate the existing 

order of spousal support. Thus, this case commenced in the 

circuit court in a significantly different procedural posture 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

than Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 340 S.E.2d 578 (1986), which 

husband relies upon as authority. In Boyd, the wife failed to 

request spousal support when she filed her initial pleadings in 

the circuit court, no order concerning spousal support was filed 

during the proceedings, and the issue was not raised by the 

parties in their trial memoranda. Id. at 18, 340 S.E.2d at 579. 

 We ruled that the issue of spousal support was not raised in the 

pleadings and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award relief 

not sought. Id. at 19, 340 S.E.2d at 580. See also Reid v. 

Reid, 24 Va. App. 146, 150, 480 S.E.2d 771, 773 (1997). 

 Here, the requested relief was the termination of support, 

which wife opposed. As noted by the trial court, "the parties 

and counsel adduced almost 200 pages of transcribed testimony 

primarily on the issue of spousal support." The trial court 

correctly noted that wife 

 currently receives spousal support under a 

valid and final order of the juvenile court. 

 She does not have to affirmatively plead for 

something she has already been awarded. It 

is [husband] who seeks relief in this case, 

by way of a termination of his spousal 

support obligation. 

The court found that husband assumed responsibility for payments 

on a tax lien and the outstanding indebtedness on the car in 

wife's possession and that those were material changes which 

justified a termination in support. The court then noted that, 

"[i]f circumstances materially change again in the future, [wife] 

has the right, to be expressly reserved in the divorce decree, to 
 3 

petition for a modification as provided by statute." 

 We find no error in the trial court's decision to grant 

husband's request to terminate support, but reserve wife's right 

to petition for support again in the future. Accordingly, the 

decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. 

 Affirmed.