COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank 

SHEILA ROCHE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1807-98-4 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 4, 1999 

STEPHEN ROCHE 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

M. Langhorne Keith, Judge 

(Dennis M. Hottell; Carolyn T. Hogans; David 

Ginsberg; Dennis M. Hottell & Associates, 

P.C., on brief), for appellant. 

(Michael A. Mays, on brief), for appellee. 

 Sheila Roche (mother) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court granting the plea of Stephen Roche (father) to dismiss 

this action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Mother 

contends that the trial court erred by ruling that Virginia was 

an inconvenient forum because Virginia had jurisdiction for the 

child support arrearage and because father is a beneficiary of a 

testamentary spendthrift trust which contains funds which could 

satisfy the arrearage. Mother also sought attorney’s fees and 

costs. 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. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, 

this opinion is not designated for publication.
- 2 -

 Under familiar principles, we view the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences in 

the light most favorable to the prevailing 

party below . . . . “The burden is on the 

party who alleges reversible error to show 

by the record that reversal is the remedy to 

which he is entitled.” We are not the 

fact-finders and an appeal should not be 

resolved on the basis of our supposition 

that one set of facts is more probable than 

another. 

Lutes v. Alexander, 14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d 857, 859 

(1992) (citation omitted). 

 By order of the Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic 

Relations District Court, entered February 9, 1984, father was 

required to pay $100 in monthly child support, raised to $200 a 

month as of September 1984, plus $100 per month to pay a $600 

support arrearage. Both parties subsequently moved to 

California. In October 1992, the Plumas County Superior Court 

in California terminated father’s child support obligation as of 

July 1, 1992. Mother filed a Petition for Rule to Show Cause in 

the Circuit Court of Fairfax County on May 7, 1998, seeking to 

recover approximately $50,000 in support arrearage from father’s 

interest in the spendthrift trust established by his mother’s 

will, which was probated in Fairfax County. Father entered a 

plea of forum non conveniens. In support of his plea, father 

presented evidence that the parties resided in California and 

that a California court entered the most recent order in this 

matter. Father also presented evidence that he suffers from 
- 3 -

degenerative disc disease and that the Social Security 

Administration found him to be disabled because of this disease 

and the accompanying depression. By affidavit, father asserted 

that he was unable to work or to attend hearings in Virginia due 

to this disease. 

Forum Non Conveniens

 We find no error in the trial court’s decision granting 

father’s plea. 

 The transfer decision is within the 

court's discretion, and, as with other 

discretionary acts, there is no clear 

formula which can be mechanically applied. 

Circumstances ordinarily considered in 

motions to transfer on the basis of forum

non conveniens include 

“relative ease of access to 

sources of proof; availability of 

compulsory process for attendance 

of unwilling, and the cost of 

obtaining attendance of willing 

witnesses; possibility of view of 

premises, if view would be 

appropriate to the action; and all 

other practical problems that make 

trial of a case easy, expeditious 

and inexpensive.” 

Norfolk and W. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 239 Va. 390, 393, 389 S.E.2d 

714, 716 (1990) (citation omitted). 

 Mother relies upon Commonwealth ex rel. Kenitzer v. 

Richter, 23 Va. App. 186, 475 S.E.2d 817 (1996). That case is 

distinguishable. Unlike the circumstances in the present case, 

the trial court in Richter erroneously ruled that it lacked 
- 4 -

jurisdiction. See id. at 191-93, 475 S.E.2d at 820. Moreover, 

in this case, the parties live in a single state which has 

already entered a child support order. In Richter, the wife 

lived in California, the husband lived in South Carolina, and 

the wife unsuccessfully sought to resolve the matter of 

arrearage in South Carolina before seeking to pursue her claim 

in Virginia. Mother concedes that she could pursue her claim in 

California. The trial court found that “[b]oth considerations 

of judicial administration and convenience to the parties 

indicate that California is the more appropriate forum . . . .” 

While mother seeks to reach father’s interest in the Virginia 

spendthrift trust to satisfy the child support arrearage, the 

amount of arrearage first must be ascertained. The evidence, 

both documentary and testimonial, necessary to determine the 

amount of the arrearage is more easily presented in California 

where the parties reside. We find no error in the trial court’s 

decision to transfer resolution of that contested issue to a 

location more convenient to both parties. 

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. 
- 5 -

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

(1985). We find unpersuasive mother’s claim that father is 

financially responsible for her attorney’s fees because he is the 

beneficiary of a spendthrift trust. We cannot say that the trial 

judge abused his discretion in failing to award mother attorney’s 

fees and costs. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

Affirmed.