COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons 

KAREN A. McINTOSH 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0472-98-4 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 17, 1998 

JOHN A. McINTOSH 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Jane Marum Roush, Judge 

 (Stephen Andrew Armstrong, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Karen A. McIntosh (wife) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court disbursing the proceeds from the sale of the parties' 

former marital home. The trial court reduced wife's portion of 

the disbursed funds in order to pay attorney's fees incurred by 

John A. McIntosh (husband) and the real estate commissioner's 

fees. Wife contends that the trial court abused its discretion 

by (1) awarding fees to husband although wife prevailed in her 

purchase offer; and (2) awarding fees without evidence to show 

that the fees were reasonable and necessary under the 

circumstances of this case. Upon reviewing the record and wife's 

opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. 

See Rule 5A:27. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 The record on appeal includes a transcript of the January 

30, 1998 hearing on husband's motion to disburse the proceeds of 

the sale of the marital home. We do not consider wife's written 

statement of facts which was not timely filed. 

 Under the terms of the parties' property settlement 

agreement executed in connection with their 1990 divorce, wife 

could remain in the marital home for five years. The parties 

agreed that, after five years, wife could buy husband's one-third 

interest in the home if they could agree on the purchase price. 

If the parties could not agree, the home would be sold and the 

parties would split the proceeds, with wife receiving two-thirds 

of that amount. 

 At the end of five years, the parties could not agree on the 

purchase price. Wife eventually purchased the property for 

$300,000 in October 1997, after the appointment of a special real 

estate commissioner. The proceeds were held by the clerk of the 

circuit court pending an agreement on disbursement. 

 By motion filed December 12, 1997, husband sought a final 

order disbursing the sale proceeds. He argued that he was 

entitled to an award of $5,200 in attorney's fees. He also 

argued that wife should be required to pay the real estate 

commissioner's fees of $15,844.50 from her two-thirds portion of 

the disbursement. Husband contended that wife unreasonably 

refused to cooperate in the sale of the property, requiring 

additional hearings and the appointment of the commissioner. 
- 3 - 

 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, 

338 S.E.2d 159, 162 (1985). Our review of the record 

demonstrates that the trial court's decision to impose attorney's 

fees and commissioner's fees on wife was not an abuse of 

discretion. Wife was repeatedly ordered to show cause for 

failing to comply with existing court orders. She was jailed for 

contempt following the August 22, 1997 hearing in which the 

commissioner presented evidence documenting wife's attempts to 

undermine the commissioner's efforts to sell the marital home. 

Interested buyers were unable to view the home, which was listed 

for sale at approximately $350,000. While wife's offer of 

$300,000 was the offer finally accepted, her previous offers to 

purchase husband's share had been substantially lower. 

 The fees of both husband's counsel and the commissioner were 

supported by detailed billing records. In addition, the trial 

court was familiar with the case and with the efforts expended by 

both husband's counsel and the commissioner. Husband's 

attorney's fees and the commissioner's fees were directly 

attributable to wife's refusal to cooperate. Therefore, we find 

no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to require 
- 4 - 

wife to pay both fees. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

Affirmed.