COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

NANCY W. HARRISON 

v. Record No. 1280-95-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

W. GORDON HARRISON, III JANUARY 30, 1996 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Thomas S. Shadrick, Judge 

 Jerrold G. Weinberg (Michael H. Wojcik; Weinberg & 

Stein, on briefs), for appellant. 

 Joseph L. Lyle, Jr. (Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., on 

brief), for appellee. 

 

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

designated for publication. 

 Nancy Harrison (wife) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court setting the amount of spousal and child support to be paid 

by Gordon Harrison (husband). Wife contends that the trial court 

erred in rejecting the commissioner's recommendation to impute 

$2,000 in additional monthly income to husband. We disagree and, 

finding no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court. 

 Wife contends that the commissioner's recommendation to 

impute $2,000 a month in additional income to husband was proper 

and substantiated. Wife presented a provision of a trust created 

by husband's grandmother which provided, in part, that the 

trustee had the sole discretion to use the corpus of the trust 

"at any time that my said daughters or grandchildren are in need 

of an additional fund, properly to support, maintain or care for 
- 2 - 

them or any of them in the manner to which they have been 

accustomed . . . ." Wife also presented a letter indicating that 

the trust had a corpus of $1.3 million in 1987 and generated 

$65,000 in income that year. Husband testified that he was one 

of four contingent beneficiaries of the trust established for the 

primary benefit of his mother and aunt. Upon the death of the 

primary beneficiaries, the corpus of the trust could be 

distributed. Upon these facts, the commissioner in chancery 

found the trust to be a financial resource available to husband 

and imputed the additional monthly income. 

 The chancellor appoints a commissioner in chancery to aid 

him or her in "the proper and expeditious performance of his [or 

her] official duties." Haase v. Haase, 20 Va. App. 671, 678-79, 

460 S.E.2d 585, 588 (1995) (alteration in original) (quoting 

Raiford v. Raiford, 193 Va. 221, 226, 68 S.E.2d 888, 891 (1952)). 

 In doing so, the court does not delegate its judicial functions 

to the commissioner, and the actions of the commissioner are not 

binding upon the chancellor. Haase, 20 Va. App. at 679, 460 

S.E.2d at 588. "The ultimate decision in the case is left to the 

chancellor, who must review the evidence according to correct 

principles of law and arrive at his or her own conclusions." 

Cochran v. Cochran, 14 Va. App. 827, 831, 419 S.E.2d 419, 421 

(1992). 

 In this case the chancellor, upon review of the facts, 

rejected the commissioner's recommendation and ruled that 
- 3 - 

insufficient evidence existed to impute additional income to 

husband. The imputed income was speculative, impossible to 

calculate without knowing the current status of the corpus, 

yearly income, or beneficiaries. The judgment of the trial court 

is presumed correct and its ruling will not be disturbed if 

supported by credible evidence. Steinberg v. Steinberg, 11 Va. 

App. 323, 329, 398 S.E.2d 507, 510 (1990). 

 We find that the evidence before the commissioner supports 

the chancellor's decision. The decision of the trial court is 

affirmed. Of course, the parties remain at liberty to petition 

the circuit court for increases or decreases in the sums set for 

spousal and child support, if they be so advised and if new facts 

seem to justify such action. 

 Affirmed.