COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

RENATA MARYANN NAYDOCK BIBB 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1918-97-4 PER CURIAM 

 FEBRUARY 17, 1998 

RICHARD EUGENE BIBB 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

David T. Stitt, Judge 

 (Peter M. Fitzner; Shoun & Bach, on briefs), 

for appellant. 

 (J. Patrick McConnell; Elizabeth L. Salans; 

Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Renata Maryann Naydock Bibb appeals the decision of the 

circuit court denying her motion to increase the monthly spousal 

support she receives from her former husband, Richard Eugene 

Bibb. The wife contends that the trial judge erred in failing to 

increase spousal support. In his brief, the husband raises as an 

additional question whether the trial judge erred when he reduced 

the monthly income imputed to the wife from $1,042 to $283. 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. 

 Code § 20-109 provides that "upon petition of either party 

the court may increase, decrease or terminate spousal support and 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

maintenance that may thereafter accrue . . . as the circumstances 

may make proper." In seeking a modification, "[t]he moving 

party . . . is required to prove both a material change in 

circumstances 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 wife filed a petition to increase child support and 

spousal support, alleging an increase in the husband's earnings. 

 The trial judge found that the husband's increased earnings 

warranted an increase in monthly child support from $691 to 

$1,145, retroactive to the filing of the petition. The trial 

judge denied any increase in spousal support and awarded the wife 

$10,000 in attorney's fees. 

 The evidence proved that the husband's earnings have 

increased. The husband's earnings were $180,000 in 1993, 

$178,000 in 1994, and $204,000 in 1995. The trial judge found 

that the husband's 1996 earnings were an aberration and found it 

appropriate to use $250,000 as the amount of the husband's 1996 

earnings when computing child support. 

 When the trial judge set the original award in 1994, the 

trial judge imputed $25,000 in income to the wife. In her 

current petition, the wife asserted that she no longer enjoyed 

the middle-class standard of living enjoyed by the parties during 

the marriage and that she was unable to earn income at the 

imputed level of $25,000. The wife contended that she needed 
 3 

additional assistance to help her purchase a new car, new 

clothes, and a new computer to be successful in her chosen career 

as a real estate agent. 

 Although the evidence indicated that the wife's financial 

well-being had decreased and the husband's had increased, those 

facts alone do not mandate an increase in spousal support. The 

trial judge found that the wife bore responsibility for her 

decreased financial well-being. The wife testified that she 

worked forty to sixty hours a week as a real estate agent since 

June 1996. However, the wife testified that she had decided not 

to seek any employment other than that as a real estate agent and 

that she applied for only one job since the divorce. The trial 

judge was not required to accept her belief that her mental 

depression prevented her from engaging in regularly scheduled 

work and only permitted her to sporadically sell real estate. 

The trial judge heard and saw the parties testify and did not 

find credible the wife's contention that her depressed state made 

her incapable of seeking other, more reliable, employment, but 

did not keep her from working forty to sixty hours a week as a 

real estate agent. 

 The trial judge's findings are supported by credible 

evidence. Therefore, we cannot say that the trial judge erred by 

refusing to find that changed circumstances justified an increase 

in spousal support. 

Reduction in Imputed Income
 4 

 The husband contends that the trial judge erred by reducing 

the income imputed to the wife when calculating child support. 

We disagree. The trial judge calculated the child support 

payments pursuant to the guidelines found in Code § 20-108.2, 

which are presumed to be correct. See Code § 20-108.1(B). The 

trial judge elected not to deviate from the guidelines by 

imputing income to the wife. Based upon the circumstances as 

they existed at the time of the hearing, we cannot say the trial 

judge erred in failing to impute income to the wife. 

 Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision. 

 Affirmed.