COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

DOUGLAS A. PERRY, SR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1917-97-1 PER CURIAM 

 MARCH 31, 1998 

DORIS E. PERRY 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK 

Westbrook J. Parker, Judge 

 (J. Wayne Sprinkle, on brief), for appellant. 

 Appellant submitting on brief. 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Douglas A. Perry, Sr. (husband) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court. Husband contends that the trial court erred by 

(1) awarding spousal support to Doris E. Perry (wife); (2) 

awarding attorney's fees to wife; and (3) allowing wife to pay 

husband one-half the value of marital possessions she retained. 

We disagree and affirm the circuit court's decision. 

 The evidence on equitable distribution was heard by a 

commissioner in chancery. The commissioner's report "should be 

sustained unless the trial court concludes that the 

commissioner's findings are not supported by the evidence." Hill 

v. Hill, 227 Va. 569, 576-77, 318 S.E.2d 292, 296 (1984) 

(citations omitted). "On appeal, a decree which approves a 

commissioner's report will be affirmed unless plainly wrong." 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

Id. at 577, 318 S.E.2d at 296. The trial court held a hearing on 

spousal support and attorney's fees, and its decision is presumed 

to be correct. See Martin v. Pittsylvania County Dep't of Social 

Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986). 

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). 

 In awarding spousal support, the chancellor 

must consider the relative needs and 

abilities of the parties. He is guided by 

the nine factors that are set forth in Code 

§ 20-107.1. When the chancellor has given 

due consideration to these factors, his 

determination will not be disturbed on appeal 

except for a clear abuse of discretion. 

Collier v. Collier, 2 Va. App. 125, 129, 341 S.E.2d 827, 829 

(1986). 

 Husband contends that the trial court erred by awarding wife 

spousal support because he lacked the ability to pay support due 

to his expenses and outstanding loans. He further contends that 

wife did not need spousal support in light of her employment 

income and her share of his monthly retirement pay. These 

contentions lack merit. 

 Wife presented evidence that she was unable to meet her 

current expenses without borrowing and using credit cards. Her 

standard of living had declined since the marriage ended. Wife's 
 3 

health was poor, and her residence needed repairs she was unable 

to afford. While wife's estimate of monthly income and expenses 

showed a surplus of $47, the listed expenses reflect conservative 

cost estimates, with few if any provisions for unexpected 

emergencies, medical bills, or extensive home repairs. 

 Husband's income was almost twice that of wife. Husband's 

income and expense statement indicated that he had a monthly 

deficit of $1,700, including over $1,200 in monthly debts for 

marital and post-separation debts which husband alleged totaled 

$25,000. 

 The trial court indicated that it considered the statutory 

factors, in particular the standard of living established during 

the marriage, the length of the marriage, the parties' physical 

conditions, and their property interests. Inherent in the trial 

court's award are its credibility determinations based upon the 

parties' testimony regarding their expenses. Evidence supports 

the trial court's decision to award wife $600 in monthly support. 

 Therefore, we affirm its award. 

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. See 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. See McGinnis v. McGinnis, 1 Va. App. 272, 277, 
 4 

338 S.E.2d 159, 162 (1985). 

 Here, husband presented evidence that he had incurred over 

$12,000 in attorney's fees. Wife's counsel indicated that that 

amount was reasonable in light of the number of hearings and that 

wife's fees were equal to those of husband. Based on the 

evidence and the parties' respective abilities to pay, we cannot 

say that the award of $6,000 to wife was unreasonable or that the 

trial judge abused his discretion in making the award. 

Equitable Distribution

 Husband contends that the trial court erred when it allowed 

wife the option to pay husband one-half the value of any marital 

possessions she retained. While husband asserts that "these 

items" were important to him, he fails to identify the items to 

which he refers or to indicate why they are important to him. 

"Statements unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to 

the record do not merit appellate consideration. We will not 

search the record for errors in order to interpret the 

appellant's contention and correct deficiencies in a brief." 

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

(1992). We do not consider this argument further. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.