COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

BOBBY R. THACKER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0371-97-1 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 29, 1997 

SANDRA M. THACKER 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF YORK COUNTY 

N. Prentis Smiley, Jr., Judge 

 (Timothy S. Fisher; Overman, Cowardin & 

Martin, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Kenneth B. Murov; Jones, Blechman, Woltz & 

Kelly, on brief), for appellee. 

 Bobby R. Thacker (husband) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court judge awarding spousal support to Sandra M. Thacker 

(wife) and deciding other issues. Husband contends that the 

trial judge erred by (1) denying his claim for reimbursement for 

marital debts he paid, (2) failing to consider the provisions of 

Code § 20-107.1 when setting spousal support and specifically 

failing to impute income to wife, and (3) improperly considering 

future factors when awarding spousal support. 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. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

Marital Debts

 The trial judge ruled that husband failed to prove that he 

used separate property to pay $35,290 in marital debts. 

Specifically, the judge noted that "[h]usband testified that his 

expenditures were from joint marital assets to cover joint 

marital debt, wherein the parties mutually benefitted from their 

use." Thus, the record establishes that the payments were made 

from marital assets. In addition, some debts were gifts 

voluntarily made for the parties' children. The trial judge 

"made extensive inquiry" into husband's claim that he used 

separate funds to pay marital debts and his decision is supported 

by the record. 

Spousal Support

 "The determination whether a spouse is entitled to support, 

and if so how much, is a matter within the discretion of the 

court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that 

some injustice has been done." Dukelow v. Dukelow, 2 Va. App. 

21, 27, 341 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1986). Husband contends that the 

trial judge erred by failing to consider the statutory factors 

set out in Code § 20-107.1, and specifically failing to impute 

any income to wife. The trial judge considered the evidence 

relative to the statutory factors and ruled that wife was 

entitled to support. These findings are supported by evidence. 

 "A court may under appropriate circumstances impute income 

to a party seeking spousal support." Srinivasan v. Srinivasan, 
 3 

10 Va. App. 728, 734, 396 S.E.2d 675, 679 (1990). However, the 

trial judge may allow a party a reasonable amount of time within 

which to seek and obtain employment before imputing income. See

id. at 735, 396 S.E.2d at 679-80. The record demonstrates that 

wife left a job that she held for twenty years because her 

supervisor abused her and reduced her salary by $10,000. Wife's 

testimony concerning the working conditions was corroborated by a 

fellow worker. Wife testified that she discussed the situation 

with husband before quitting her job. Wife obtained a new job at 

a reduced salary. Wife testified that her current salary was 

$1,125 and her monthly expenses totaled $1,956. 

 Although the trial judge found that wife was capable of 

earning $25,000 to $30,000 per year, the trial judge found that 

presently wife earned substantially less. The trial judge also 

found that the amount of spousal support was subject to change if 

the wife did not make an effort to increase her income. The 

record establishes that the trial judge considered the evidence 

and the parties' relative earnings and financial needs in setting 

support. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's 

refusal to impute additional income to wife at this time. 

 Finally, husband also contends that the trial judge 

erroneously relied upon future circumstances in setting spousal 

support. We disagree. The trial judge's recognition that wife's 

current employment was below the maximum she was capable of 

earning, based upon her past salary level, did not preclude an 
 4 

award of support based upon her current circumstances under the 

statutory factors set out in Code § 20-107.1. Similarly, the 

trial judge's recognition that, given additional time to conduct 

a search, wife might find a job with a comparable salary, did not 

make its current award of support less permanent. We find no 

indication that the trial judge erroneously considered events in 

the future as the basis for the current award of spousal support. 

 Accordingly, the decision is summarily affirmed. 

 Affirmed.