COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

FRANK S. MULLIN, III 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2731-95-4 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 9, 1996 

SHIRLEY N. MULLIN 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Jack B. Stevens, Judge 

 (Laurence J. Tracy, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Marcia M. Maddox; Heather A. Cooper, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Frank S. Mullin, III, (husband) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court denying his motion to reduce spousal support paid 

to Shirley N. Mullin (wife). On appeal, husband contends that 

(1) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find that 

there was a material change in circumstances warranting a 

reduction in spousal support; (2) the trial court erred or abused 

its discretion in failing to consider the factors listed in Code 

§ 20-107.1; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in 

awarding attorney's fees to wife. 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 

Material Change

 "The moving party in a petition for modification of support 

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). See Code § 20-109. This "material change" must have 

occurred subsequent to the most recent judicial review of the 

award. See Hiner v. Hadeed, 15 Va. App. 575, 577, 425 S.E.2d 

811, 812 (1993). On appeal, we construe the evidence in the 

light most favorable to wife as the prevailing party, granting 

her all inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See McGuire v. 

McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). "We 

will not disturb the trial court's decision where it is based on 

an ore tenus hearing, unless it is 'plainly wrong or without 

evidence in the record to support it.'" Furr v. Furr, 13 Va. 

App. 479, 481, 413 S.E.2d 72, 73 (1992) (citation omitted). 

 Husband contends that there had been a material change in 

circumstances following the court's last review of spousal 

support on January 27, 1994. Husband further contends the trial 

court erred when it found no material change for spousal support 

purposes after finding grounds to increase his child support. 

The evidence proved that both husband and wife earned more at the 

time of the hearing than they did in January 1994. The parents' 

increased income requires either a recomputation of child support 

or a written finding rebutting the application of the guidelines. 
 3 

 Code § 20-108.2. The parties' increased income supports the 

trial judge's decision to increase child support payments. Code 

§ 20-108.2. However, under the Virginia statute, a trial court's 

findings concerning child support are distinct from its spousal 

support determinations. 

 Proof that both parties experienced an increase in income 

does not necessarily warrant a finding that spousal support 

should be decreased. Wife testified that she was earning $20,000 

per year at the time of the January 1994 hearing. Wife had been 

terminated from that employment and had trouble finding new 

employment. She was currently earning approximately $29,000 per 

year. She has a serious health condition that was not currently 

covered by insurance. Since the last hearing, wife had moved 

from her mother's home and had purchased a townhouse closer to 

her new job. Her expenses had substantially increased. 

 Husband testified that he took a new position with increased 

income, but which had no retirement benefits and higher medical 

insurance costs. The court found husband's current monthly 

income to be $5,948. His average monthly income for 1993 was 

$5,187. Husband testified that he had about $3,000 in expenses 

for dental work that he needed. 

 On this evidence the trial court found that husband had not 

demonstrated a material change in circumstances justifying a 

modification of spousal support. Significantly, both parties had 

increased earnings since that hearing. Wife's expenses for 
 4 

housing and related costs had also increased. Considering all of 

these factors, we cannot say the trial court's decision was 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. 

Statutory Factors

 Husband contends, without specification, that the 

trial court failed to consider the factors 

set out in Code § 20-107.1 when reaching its 

determination. The record demonstrates that 

the court considered the financial 

information presented by the parties. See

Hollowell v. Hollowell, 6 Va. App. 417, 419, 

369 S.E.2d 451, 452-53 (1988). Husband has 

not indicated which additional statutory 

factors the trial court failed to consider. 

Although the appellant argues that the trial 

court did not consider all of the statutory 

factors, his brief fails to identify which 

factors were not considered and how they 

would have affected the trial court's 

determination. Since this argument was not 

fully developed in the appellant's brief, we 

need not address this question. 

Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 

(1992). Therefore, we find no error in the trial judge's 

determination. 
 5 

 Attorney's Fees

 An award of attorney's fees is a matter submitted to the 

sound discretion of the trial court and is reviewable on appeal 

only for an abuse of discretion. Graves v. Graves, 4 Va. App. 

326, 333, 357 S.E.2d 554, 558 (1987). The key to a proper award 

of counsel fees is reasonableness under all the circumstances. 

McGinnis v. McGinnis, 1 Va. App. 272, 277, 338 S.E.2d 159, 162 

(1985). Husband earned substantially more than wife. Wife 

incurred over $4,500 in fees and costs associated with the trial 

court proceedings. Based on the number of issues involved and 

the respective abilities of the parties to pay, we cannot say 

that the award was unreasonable or that the trial judge abused 

his discretion in awarding wife $2,500 in attorney's fees. 

Motion for Sanctions

 Wife has filed a motion for sanctions seeking an award of 

attorney's fees. In the trial court, husband filed a motion to 

reduce spousal support based upon wife's full-time employment. 

Husband admitted that he did not know wife's income at the time 

he filed the motion. The trial court awarded wife a portion of 

her attorney's fees arising from husband's unsuccessful motion. 

Husband's failure to demonstrate a material change in 

circumstances justifying a reduction in spousal support does not 

warrant sanctions under Rule 11. Therefore, wife's motion for 

sanctions is denied. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 
 6 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.