COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Willis 

HOWARD WILLIAMS DAWSON 

v. Record No. 1305-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

SHELBY FOGG DAWSON DECEMBER 29, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY 

Richard H. C. Taylor, Judge 

 (Howard W. Dawson, pro se, on brief). 

 (Harry P. Anderson, Jr., on brief), for appellee. 

 Howard Williams Dawson (husband) appeals the equitable 

distribution decision of the circuit court awarding certain 

amounts to Shelby Fogg Dawson (wife). Husband's appeal raises 

the following issues: (1) whether the circuit court erred or 

abused its discretion in reaching its equitable distribution 

decision; (2) whether the circuit court erred in not sanctioning 

wife; and (3) whether the circuit court erred in ordering the 

payment of a lien held by wife's father. 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:27.1

 

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

designated for publication. 

 1Wife argues that husband's appeal is untimely. The final 

decree of divorce which equitably divided the parties' marital 

property was entered on April 4, 1994. Wife contends the final 

order was entered on October 25, 1994, at which time the court 

approved the report of the special commissioner and allowed the 

payment of outstanding liens and expenses and the distribution of 

the marital property. However, both parties had outstanding 
 2 

 Equitable Distribution Decision

 Husband alleges that the trial court erred in its equitable 

distribution of the parties' marital assets. "Fashioning an 

equitable distribution award lies within the sound discretion of 

the trial judge and that award will not be set aside unless it is 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Srinivasan v. 

Srinivasan, 10 Va. App. 728, 732, 396 S.E.2d 675, 678 (1990). 

 "[T]he chancellor is necessarily vested with 

broad discretion in the discharge of the 

duties . . . [Code § 20-107.3] imposes upon 

him. Unless it appears from the record that 

the chancellor has abused his discretion, 

that he has not considered or has misapplied 

one of the statutory mandates, or that the 

evidence fails to support the findings of 

fact underlying his resolution of the 

conflict in the equities, the chancellor's 

equitable distribution award will not be 

reversed on appeal." 

Brown v. Brown, 5 Va. App. 238, 244-45, 361 S.E.2d 364, 368 

(1987) (citation omitted). 

 The matter was referred to a commissioner in chancery, who 

heard the evidence ore tenus. The commissioner's report set out 

both the statutory factors and the evidence upon which the 

recommended distribution was based. The commissioner noted that 

husband failed to present "admissible credible evidence of 

alternative valuations and classifications." The commissioner 

also noted that, while husband had made substantial monetary 

 

motions which were not resolved until the court's decision of 

March 3, 1995. Therefore, we find that husband's appeal is 

timely. 
 3 

contributions early in the marriage, wife made the majority of 

the non-monetary contributions throughout the marriage and the 

majority of the monetary contributions in the last twelve years. 

 Wife also made the greater contributions toward the acquisition 

of marital assets in the last twelve years of the marriage. In 

addition, wife's father provided substantial assistance to the 

family during times of financial difficulty. 

 The trial court accepted the equitable distribution award 

recommended in the commissioner's report. The award was 

supported by competent, credible evidence, and was made after 

consideration of the statutory factors. We therefore find no 

grounds for reversal of the court's equitable distribution 

decision. 

Sanctions against Wife

 Husband alleged in the trial court that wife altered items 

to be sold at auction in order to reduce their selling price and 

committed waste in regards to other marital assets. Husband 

argues the trial court erred in failing to sanction wife for 

violations of its orders or to modify its equitable distribution 

award. 

 A trial court's award or denial of sanctions is reversible 

on appeal only if the trial court abused its discretion. Oxenham 

v. Johnson, 241 Va. 281, 287, 402 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1991). While 

husband brought his allegations of waste by wife before the trial 

court, he presented only innuendo and speculation to support his 
 4 

allegations. In contrast, credible evidence supported the report 

of the special commissioner regarding the outstanding liens, 

costs and expenses to be paid prior to the distribution of the 

remaining marital assets. Based upon that credible evidence, the 

trial court ordered payments to be made pursuant to the special 

commissioner's report. Therefore, we cannot say that the trial 

court abused its discretion by denying husband's motion to 

sanction wife. 

Payment of Lien

 On October 7, 1994, husband filed a motion disputing the 

validity of the lien held by wife's father. On October 25, 1994, 

the trial court approved the report of the special commissioner 

and ordered the payment of all outstanding liens and expenses, 

including the lien held by wife's father. Husband did not 

endorse the order, although the order indicates the parties were 

present in court. 

 Wife presented credible evidence documenting the lien. 

Husband challenged the lien, but failed to present evidence to 

support his challenge. "The burden is on the party alleging 

trial court error to show by the record that the judgment was 

erroneous, or that the finding was plainly wrong and without 

evidence to support it by a preponderance of the evidence." 

Carter v. Thornhill, 19 Va. App. 501, 509, 453 S.E.2d 295, 300 

(1995). Husband has not demonstrated that the trial court's 

decision to approve the outstanding lien was plainly wrong or 
 5 

unsupported by the evidence. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.