COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons 

JOHN HALL, JR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1255-98-3 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 24, 1998 

HALLIE M. HALL 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE 

Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge 

 (John W. Acree; Jolly, Place, Fralin & 

Prillaman, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Jack Vernon Altizer; Bettina C. Altizer; 

Altizer & Altizer, on brief), for appellee. 

 John Hall, Jr. (husband) appeals the equitable distribution 

decision of the circuit court. Husband contends that the trial 

court erred by awarding Hallie M. Hall (wife) a sixty percent 

interest in the marital residence and by failing to credit 

husband with his post-separation mortgage payments. 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. 

Marital Residence

 "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 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

S.E.2d 675, 678 (1990). "Unless it appears from the record that 

the trial judge has not considered or has misapplied one of the 

statutory mandates, this Court will not reverse on appeal." 

Ellington v. Ellington, 8 Va. App. 48, 56, 378 S.E.2d 626, 630 

(1989). 

 The evidence demonstrated that the parties purchased the 

marital residence during the marriage. Wife contributed 

approximately $5,000 in separate funds to pay closing costs and 

to purchase appliances for the home. Wife presented evidence 

that she also paid more than half of the mortgage payments during 

the time she resided in the marital home and made additional 

contributions towards improving and maintaining the marital home. 

 Husband presented no evidence, having failed to appear at the 

equitable distribution hearing despite receiving and 

acknowledging notice in open court. 

 Virginia's equitable distribution scheme does not provide "a 

statutory presumption of equal distribution." Papuchis v. 

Papuchis, 2 Va. App. 130, 132, 341 S.E.2d 829, 830 (1986). The 

evidence recited in the above paragraph supports the trial 

court's decision. Therefore, husband has failed to demonstrate 

grounds for reversal. 

 In his brief, husband contends that the record fails to 

demonstrate that the trial court considered the statutory factors 

set out in Code § 20-107.3. This argument was never raised 

before the trial court and will not be considered for the first 
- 3 - 

time on appeal. See Rule 5A:18. 

Post-Separation Contributions

 Husband lived in the former marital residence after the 

parties' final separation. Wife's evidence showed that husband 

delayed the resolution of the equitable distribution issues, in 

part by denying a real estate appraiser access to the home. In 

light of the benefit husband received through his sole possession 

of the marital home, and his responsibility for delaying a final 

resolution of that matter, we find no error in the trial court's 

decision to deny appellant additional credit for his 

post-separation mortgage payments. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.