COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

BERNARD GOLDBERG 

v. Record No. 1217-95-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

JANE A. GOLDBERG NOVEMBER 14, 1995 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Thomas S. Shadrick, Judge 

 (Philip J. Geib; Bennett and Zydron, P.C., on brief), 

 for appellant. 

 (Michael A. Robusto; Slipow, Robusto & Kellam, P.C., 

 on brief), for appellee. 

 Bernard Goldberg (husband) appeals the equitable 

distribution decision of the circuit court. Husband argues that 

the trial court erred in (1) valuing husband's business and in 

awarding a twenty-five percent share to Jane A. Goldberg (wife), 

(2) crediting husband with the cost of some post-separation home 

repairs, and (3) finding that the evidence did not support 

husband's claim of an outstanding $35,000 loan from his brother. 

 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. 

Standard of Review

 "In reviewing an equitable distribution award on appeal, 

we recognize that the trial court's job is a difficult one. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

Accordingly, we rely heavily on the discretion of the trial judge 

in weighing the many considerations and circumstances that are 

presented in each case." Artis v. Artis, 4 Va. App. 132, 137, 

354 S.E.2d 812, 815 (1987). 

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). 

Valuation and Distribution of Pet Shop Business

 Husband testified that his ongoing pet store business was 

worth $20,000 to $25,000, based upon the wholesale worth of his 

inventory. Husband also alleged there was an outstanding debt of 

$38,000 for a loan husband received from his mother and brother. 

 However, wife presented the testimony of an expert who valued 

husband's business at $116,000. The expert witness explained his 

methodology, which evaluated the business based upon past years' 

earnings, weighted more heavily for more recent years. While 

husband disagreed with the capitalization method used by the 

expert, the expert testified that it was a method regularly used 

in the valuation of businesses. 

 The commissioner heard the testimony of the parties and 

wife's expert and had the opportunity to evaluate the merits of 
 3 

their evidence. The commissioner was not required to pick either 

the value placed upon the ongoing business by husband or by the 

expert witness. "[T]he finder of fact is not required to accept 

as conclusive the opinion of an expert." Lassen v. Lassen, 8 Va. 

App. 502, 507, 383 S.E.2d 471, 474 (1989). The commissioner 

determined that the business was valued at $70,000, which was an 

amount within the range of values supported by the evidence. We 

cannot say the trial court's decision to accept the 

commissioner's finding was an abuse of discretion. 

 Husband testified that wife worked at the pet store only the 

first week the store was open, and that she never returned to the 

store. Husband also testified that he had no idea what his wife 

did during the days, that the children did all the house 

cleaning, and that wife was out of the home much of the time. 

However, other witnesses testified that wife provided substantial 

care for the children, as husband always worked twelve hours a 

day Monday through Saturday and six hours on Sunday. Wife 

prepared dinner for the children before leaving the home and on 

occasion brought husband dinner at the store. 

 The commissioner's report demonstrates that the commissioner 

considered the statutory factors contained in Code § 20-107.3 in 

reaching his decision. We cannot say the value attributed to the 

pet shop is unsupported by the evidence, or that the award of 

twenty-five percent to wife is an abuse of discretion. 

Therefore, we affirm the trial court's award of $17,500 to wife 
 4 

as her share of the marital value of the pet store. 

Repair Costs

 Husband presented evidence that he had incurred costs of 

$37,431.31 in home repairs and improvements. A substantial 

amount of the alleged total cost was for work performed by 

husband's son. No contemporaneous receipt was produced to 

support the alleged work of the son. Additionally, husband 

acknowledged he had no receipts for another portion of the 

repairs and improvements, some of which were also performed by 

husband's son. During the hearing, the parties agreed to amend 

husband's list to remove certain pre-separation payments. 

 The commissioner allowed husband credit for all items for 

which husband presented a receipt. Implicit in that 

determination is an acknowledgement by the commissioner that 

husband failed to produce credible evidence and carry his burden 

of proving the non-receipted costs. As such, we cannot say as a 

matter of law that husband proved that he incurred those costs. 

Outstanding Loans

 Husband argues that the trial court erred in refusing to 

reduce the value of his business and the marital home by the 

amount of two outstanding loans. Husband alleged that, in 1980, 

 his brother and mother lent him $38,000 for the purchase of the 

pet store, and his brother lent him $35,000 for the purchase of 

the home. Husband presented two promissory notes, signed by him, 
 5 

payable on demand to "Betty Goldberg/Arthur Allan" with interest 

payable at six and one-half percent, as evidence of the loans. 

Husband acknowledged that there was no lien against his residence 

and that he had made no payment on either note. The commissioner 

noted that, although the promissory notes were fifteen years old, 

they looked "very fresh." The commissioner also noted that the 

term "on demand" was added in different ink and different 

writing. 

 The commissioner found, and the trial court agreed, that the 

evidence did not support husband's claim that he receive credit 

for these outstanding loans. On review, we cannot say as a 

matter of law that the trial court's finding was in error. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.