COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

DORIS BURNETTE GEDDIS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 3167-96-1 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

 SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 

WALTER CLARENCE GEDDIS 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK 

Marc Jacobson, Judge 

 B. Thomas Reed for appellant. 

 Howard E. Copeland for appellee. 

 In this appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the 

City of Norfolk (trial court), Doris Burnette Geddis (wife) 

contends that the trial court erred when it (1) imputed income to 

her without supporting evidence and (2) awarded her insufficient 

support. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm the 

ruling of the trial court. 

 Walter C. Geddis (husband) and wife were married November 

27, 1964 in Norfolk. Husband had recently retired from the Navy 

and worked first for a marine supply company and then for twenty 

years at Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The couple raised wife's six 

children from two prior marriages. Wife worked in the home 

providing child care services in addition to caring for her own 

children. She earned about $7,000 in the last year she provided 

 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

child care services before, in December 1991, husband had a heart 

attack followed by either a stroke or cerebral hemorrhage. 

 After returning home from the hospital, husband retired. 

Thereafter, wife cared for him and managed the household until 

March of 1994. During that month, husband struck wife on the 

back of her head and left arm and leg with a heavy candle holder, 

causing serious injuries requiring medical treatment and 

counseling for wife. 

 At the time of the commissioner's hearing, wife was one 

month shy of seventy years of age and suffered from high blood 

pressure and other ailments. Wife had not been gainfully 

employed as a bookkeeper for over thirty years and was not so 

employed during the parties' marriage. However, in 1994, she had 

begun to perform bookkeeping services on an unpaid basis for a 

friend who ran Walls' Marina. Wife performed the services of a 

"full charge bookkeeper" weekly for thirty-five to forty hours. 

 Husband did not appear at the initial hearing. Appearing at 

a later hearing, he did not testify but called a retired 

bookkeeper, Ernestine R. Creech, who testified that she had 

earned $13 per hour before retiring in July 1994. Creech had 

reached that rate of pay after twenty-five years as a 

professional bookkeeper and retired at age sixty-five. 

 Husband knew that wife performed bookkeeping services for 

the marina but offered no evidence of what salary, if any, wife 

was paid for her services, nor the extent of the services she 
 3 

provided. Nor was any evidence presented as to the marketability 

of a seventy-year-old woman in wife's state of health. 

 Husband also did not offer any evidence of his monthly 

obligations or debts. Husband received more than $1,9001

 per 

month in gross income from Navy retirement, civil service and 

Social Security. Wife received $330 per month in Social Security 

and, by agreement of the parties as wife's equitable distribution 

award, one-half of husband's $741 monthly retirement from Norfolk 

Naval Shipyard. Wife claimed $2,000 per month in expenses. The 

commissioner recommended that husband pay wife $300 per month in 

spousal support. The trial court imputed income to wife at the 

rate of $13 per hour and entered a decree consistent with the 

commissioner's recommendations. 

 Under familiar principles, we review the evidence "in the 

light most favorable to the party prevailing below." Wilson v. 

Wilson, 12 Va. App. 1251, 1254, 408 S.E.2d 576, 578 (1991). "A 

judgment of the trial court will not be set aside on the ground 

that it is contrary to the evidence unless it appears from the 

evidence that such judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence 

to support it." Dodge v. Dodge, 2 Va. App. 238, 242, 343 S.E.2d 

363, 365 (1986). "The burden is upon the party alleging trial 

court error to show by the record that the judgment was 

erroneous." Steinberg v. Steinberg, 11 Va. App. 323, 326, 398 

 

 1This figure does not include wife's share of husband's 

shipyard retirement. 
 4 

S.E.2d 507, 508 (1990). 

 "Whether a spouse is entitled to support, and if so how 

much, is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court 

. . . ." Id. at 329, 398 S.E.2d at 510. 

 Here, the trial court reviewed the commissioner's report and 

the record and concluded that wife had the capability of earning 

money by performing bookkeeping work. The record discloses that 

wife could perform that service at least thirty-five hours per 

week, and that the marina had a need for that service. We cannot 

say that the trial court was plainly wrong or that its decree was 

without evidence to support it when the court imputed income to 

wife and required husband to contribute only $300 per month 

toward wife's support.2

 See, e.g., Stubblebine v. Stubblebine, 

22 Va. App. 703, 473 S.E.2d 72 (1996) (en banc) (court may impute 

income to voluntarily unemployed or underemployed spouse). 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

 

 2This opinion shall not be construed to prevent either party 

from requesting modification of the support upon showing a change 

of condition justifying such relief.