COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

LARRY ANDREW PANGLE 

v. Record No. 0561-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

GWEN HALL PANGLE SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY 

Thomas D. Horne, Judge 

 (Gary V. Davis, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Richard R. Saunders, Jr.; Hanes, Sevila, Saunders & 

McCahill, on brief), for appellee. 

 Larry Andrew Pangle (husband) appeals the equitable 

distribution decision of the circuit court awarding certain 

interests and payments to Gwen Hall Pangle (wife). Husband 

raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial 

court erred in awarding wife $60,000 for her interest in the 

marital home; (2) whether the trial court erred in awarding wife 

$17,601 as her share of husband's retirement benefits received 

since the date of the parties' separation; and (3) whether the 

trial court erred in ordering husband to pay $5,000 toward an 

outstanding credit card bill. 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. 

 "[T]he chancellor is necessarily vested with 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

broad discretion in the discharge of the 

duties the statute [Code § 20-107.3] imposes 

upon him. Unless it appears from the record 

that the chancellor has abused his 

discretion, that he has not considered or has 

misapplied one of the statutory mandates, or 

that the evidence fails to support the 

findings of fact underlying his resolution of 

the conflict in the equities, the 

chancellor's equitable distribution award 

will not be reversed on appeal." 

Brown v. Brown, 5 Va. App. 238, 244-45, 361 S.E.2d 364, 368 

(1987) (citation omitted). 

I. Marital Home

 "Equitable distribution is predicated upon the philosophy 

that marriage represents an economic partnership requiring that 

upon dissolution each partner should receive a fair portion of 

the property accumulated during the marriage." Aster v. Gross, 7 

Va. App. 1, 5, 371 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1988). The statute provides 

a means to implement that philosophy where, as here, marital 

assets are used to improve and retain separate property. 

 In the case of the increase in value of 

separate property during the marriage, such 

increase in value shall be marital property 

only to the extent that marital property or 

the personal efforts of either party have 

contributed to such increases, provided that 

any such personal efforts must be significant 

and result in substantial appreciation of the 

separate property. 

Code § 20-107.3(A)(3)(a). 

 The trial court determined that the marital residence, which 

was separately titled in husband's name and eighty to ninety 

percent completed prior to the parties' marriage, was part 
 3 

husband's separate property and part marital property. The total 

separate and marital contributions used to acquire, improve, and 

retain the marital home equaled $50,400. Of that amount, $16,000 

represented the value of the land given to husband by his parents 

prior to the parties' marriage. The remaining contributions were 

marital, and included $19,900 in principal payments on two loans 

and $14,500 in increased value through the addition of landscaping and a deck. The trial court noted that "to the extent 

the increase in the value of real estate and improvements are 

traceable to such [marital] payments, such increase constitutes 

marital property subject to equitable distribution." The court 

then determined that the portion of the current net equity of 

$178,400 traceable to marital contributions was $121,833. The 

court awarded wife $60,000. 

 The court's award of an interest in the marital home to wife 

complied with the statutory guidelines, was supported by credible 

evidence, and was not an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we 

affirm the decision of the trial court. 

II. Pension

 Husband challenges the decision of the trial court awarding 

wife thirty-five percent of the marital share of the pension 

payments already drawn by husband during the period following the 

parties' last separation. Husband alleges that he is being 

required to pay twice, because his retirement income was included 

in the computation of spousal and child support. 
 4 

 Under the parties' consent decree, husband agreed to pay 

wife $425 per month in spousal support until January 1, 1996. 

However, wife's right to receive a portion of the marital share 

of husband's pension under Code § 20-107.3(G) is separate from 

her right to maintenance and support under Code § 20-107.1. The 

fact that husband began to draw his pension prior to the 

equitable distribution hearing does not reduce the amount wife is 

entitled to receive of the total marital share of husband's 

retirement benefits. 

 The court considered the statutory factors and made its 

decision in accordance with Code § 20-107.3(G). We find no error 

in the decision of the trial court to grant wife a cash award 

equal to wife's interest in the pension payments already drawn by 

husband after the parties' separation. 

III. Visa Debt

 The court also awarded wife $5,000 as payment towards an 

outstanding Visa credit card debt. Wife presented evidence that 

the card was issued in 1985 and both husband and wife were 

authorized users. Wife testified that the balance at the time 

the parties separated was approximately $6,000. Wife also 

testified that the card was used to buy clothes for the parties' 

children as well as to purchase items for the home. 

 Therefore, as credible evidence supports the trial court's 

finding that the outstanding balance on the Visa card was marital 

debt, we affirm the decision of the trial court awarding wife 
 5 

$5,000 as payment on the outstanding balance. 
 6 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.