COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

EUGENE MARY RIPPLINGER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0451-98-2 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 

PEGGY W. RIPPLINGER 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KING AND QUEEN COUNTY 

Thomas B. Hoover, Judge 

 (Dana L. Gay; Duty, Duty & Gay, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 (Breckenridge Ingles; Martin, Ingles & 

Ingles, on brief), for appellee. 

 Eugene Mary Ripplinger (husband) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court awarding spousal support to Peggy W. Ripplinger 

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

trial court erred by (1) awarding wife a divorce on the basis of 

a one-year separation rather than awarding him a divorce on the 

basis of cruelty and desertion; (2) awarding wife spousal 

support; (3) ordering husband to pay one-half of wife's 

attorney's fees; and (4) ordering husband to pay two-thirds of 

the fees for the commissioner and court reporter. 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. 

 "The decree confirming the commissioner's report is presumed 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

to be correct and will not be disturbed if it is reasonably 

supported by substantial, competent, and credible evidence." 

Brawand v. Brawand, 1 Va. App. 305, 308, 338 S.E.2d 651, 652 

(1985). However, "[t]he ultimate decision in the case is left to 

the chancellor, who must review the evidence according to correct 

principles of law and arrive at his or her own conclusions." 

Cochran v. Cochran, 14 Va. App. 827, 831, 419 S.E.2d 419, 421 

(1992). 

Grounds for Divorce

 A trial court is "not compelled 'to give precedence to one 

proven ground of divorce over another.'" Williams v. Williams, 

14 Va. App. 217, 220, 415 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1992) (citation 

omitted). "It is well established that 'where dual or multiple 

grounds for divorce exist, the trial judge can use his sound 

discretion to select the grounds upon which he will grant the 

divorce.'" Id. (citation omitted). Husband contends that the 

trial court erred by failing to award him a divorce on the 

grounds of wife's cruelty and desertion. We find no error. 

 Both parties alleged fault-based grounds for divorce. 

Husband also alleged, and wife admitted, that the parties had 

lived separate and apart for more than one year. The 

commissioner found that both parties were equally at fault 

because each constructively deserted the marriage through their 

cruelty to the other. The commissioner recommended granting wife 

a divorce on the basis of the one-year separation. The trial 
- 3 - 

court accepted the commissioner's recommendation. The trial 

court's finding was supported by the evidence and husband has not 

demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion. 

Spousal Support

 Husband did not allege adultery by wife as a ground for 

divorce. While the commissioner found that marital infidelities 

by both parties during the marriage contributed to the 

dissolution of the marriage, the commissioner made no finding 

concerning adultery by wife. Therefore, there was no bar under 

Code § 20-107.1 to an award of spousal support to wife. 

Moreover, even if husband had alleged and proven adultery by wife 

as a ground for divorce, the trial court was not barred from 

awarding spousal support if it determined "from clear and 

convincing evidence, that a denial of support and maintenance 

would constitute a manifest injustice." Id.

 The commissioner found that wife earned approximately 

one-quarter what husband earned, that husband was the primary 

wage-earner throughout the marriage, that both parties 

contributed equally to the well-being of the marriage, and that 

wife's education and employment skills were limited. Based upon 

the evidence, the commissioner recommended an award to wife of 

$500 in monthly spousal support. 

 The trial court also heard the parties testify concerning 

their respective income and expenses. While the trial court did 

not expressly state that denial of support would constitute a 
- 4 - 

manifest injustice, it recited the statutory factors it 

considered in determining the award of spousal support to wife 

and expressly found that wife had the need for support and 

husband the ability to pay support. Based upon the evidence 

related to the statutory factors, we cannot say that the trial 

court erred in affirming the commissioner's recommendation to 

award $500 in monthly spousal support to wife. 

Award of Fees

 Any award of attorney's fees and costs to a party rests with 

the sound discretion of the trial court and will only be 

disturbed where there has been an abuse of discretion. See

Rowand v. Rowand, 215 Va. 344, 346-47, 210 S.E.2d 149, 151 

(1974). Wife earned approximately one-quarter what husband 

earned. The trial court found that husband expended 

approximately $20,000 to cover various expenses related to the 

operation of his farm, which the trial court expressly found to 

be a hobby, during the period of time in which husband alleged he 

was unable to pay pendente lite spousal support or mortgage 

expenses. Based upon our examination of the record, we find no 

abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to order 

husband to pay one-half of wife's attorney's fees and two-thirds 

of the fees for the commissioner and court reporter. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.