COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Elder and Bumgardner 

DANIEL BRIAN DRYSDALE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 2438-99-3 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 4, 2000 

DEBORAH WHITT DRYSDALE 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

Duane E. Mink, Judge 

 (Charles B. Phillips; Phillips & Swanson, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 (Deborah Whitt Drysdale, pro se, on brief). 

 Daniel Brian Drysdale (husband) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court granting his motion to modify spousal support paid 

to Deborah Whitt Drysdale (wife). Husband contends that the trial 

court erred by (1) failing to impute sufficient income to wife; 

(2) disregarding wife's responsibility for her failure to work at 

her maximum capability; and (3) failing to consider income wife 

should be receiving from the equitable distribution monetary 

award. 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. 

 As the party seeking a modification of spousal support 

pursuant to Code § 20-109, husband bore the burden "to prove both 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
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). "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 to support it.'" 

Furr v. Furr, 13 Va. App. 479, 481, 413 S.E.2d 72, 73 (1992) 

(citation omitted). 

 The parties were divorced by decree entered July 13, 1998. 

Under the terms of the decree, husband was ordered to pay $1,750 

in monthly spousal support to wife and approximately $3,900 in 

monthly mortgage payments until the marital residence was sold. 

After the sale of the marital home, husband's monthly spousal 

support obligation automatically increased to $2,490. The home 

was sold prior to July 1999. Wife also received a cash monetary 

award of just under $85,000 in equitable distribution as a portion 

of her share of the parties' marital assets. The trial court also 

ordered husband to pay $25,000 in wife's attorney's fees. Husband 

received custody of the parties' three children. The trial court 

retained the case on its docket pending a hearing on husband's 

request for child support and for a reduction of spousal support. 

 In December 1998, husband filed a petition seeking to 

terminate or reduce spousal support and for child support. The 

parties presented evidence in a hearing on July 28, 1999. Based 

upon the evidence, the trial court refused to reduce the amount of 

spousal support paid to wife, finding that wife needed "additional 

- 2 -
time in order to take some additional refresher courses in order 

to reacquaint herself with some of the more current business 

procedures." However, the trial court granted husband's motion to 

impute income to wife, finding that she was capable of earning 

$15,750 annually. The trial court found that wife was obligated 

to pay child support to husband, and offset wife's child support 

obligation by the amount of spousal support due her. Husband 

objected to the trial court's order, arguing that wife was capable 

of earning more income than found by the trial court. 

Imputation of Income

 Husband argued successfully before the trial court that it 

was appropriate to impute some income to wife. "A trial court has 

discretion to impute income to either or both the custodial or 

noncustodial parent who is voluntarily unemployed." Bennett v. 

Commonwealth ex rel. Bennett, 22 Va. App. 684, 691, 472 S.E.2d 

668, 672 (1996); see Code § 20-108.1(B)(3). Evidence presented at 

the hearing indicated that wife had worked prior to the parties' 

separation in 1992. Husband's vocational expert testified that 

wife was qualified by her past work experience in one of three 

progressively higher strata. The lowest level of receptionist had 

a salary range of $15,750 to $16,200. While the expert witness 

testified that he reviewed the medical examination reports on 

wife, he admitted that he did not address any psychological 

problems which wife might have. Other evidence presented at the 

hearing indicated that wife had weekly counseling for alcohol 

- 3 -
abuse and depression, received monthly injections for back muscle 

spasms, and regularly took prescription medicine for depression. 

 The trial court found that the evidence supported an 

imputation of $15,750 in annual income to wife, which was "the 

lowest of all levels of income presented to this Court by the 

[husband's] vocational rehabilitation expert citing the [wife's] 

qualifications and the employment opportunities available" in the 

area. Because the amount of income imputed was supported by 

evidence in the record, and was not an abuse of discretion, we 

affirm the trial court's decision to impute $15,750 in income to 

wife. 

Voluntary Unemployment

 Husband also asserts that the trial court erred by failing to 

place proper weight on the voluntary nature of wife's 

unemployment. He argues that no evidence supported wife's claims 

of physical or psychological inability to work. He points to the 

testimony of the physical therapist who indicated that wife failed 

to put forth the minimum effort necessary to have valid testing. 

He also contends that no evidence supported the trial court's 

finding that wife needed additional time to refresh her business 

skills. 

 Wife testified that she not only continued to have a problem 

with alcohol abuse, for which she received weekly counseling, but 

also that she suffered from depression and chronic pain. The 

trial court that heard the evidence ore tenus had the opportunity 

- 4 -
to weigh and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, including 

wife. While we agree with husband that there was no evidence 

presented concerning wife's need to improve her job skills, other 

evidence supports the trial court's finding that wife was not 

currently prepared for employment. We find no error or abuse of 

discretion in the trial court's determination on this issue. 

Income from Monetary Award

 Husband's final contention is that the trial court erred by 

failing to consider interest income earned by wife from her 

equitable distribution monetary award. While husband raised this 

objection to the trial court's order, we find no indication that 

he presented sufficient evidence in the hearing to support the 

inclusion of any additional income. Husband does not refer to 

evidence in the record supporting the calculations set out in his 

brief on appeal. In the absence of any evidence, an assessment of 

interest income would be mere speculation. Therefore, we find no 

error in the trial court's failure to include interest income in 

wife's monthly earnings. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

- 5 -