COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Willis 

D.G.P. 

v. Record No. 1004-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

E.C.P. NOVEMBER 7, 1995 

E.C.P. 

v. Record No. 1030-95-4 

D.G.P. 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Robert W. Wooldridge, Judge 

 (Brian M. McCormack; Dunn, McCormack, 

MacPherson & Orfe, on briefs), for D.G.P. 

 (James R. Tate; Tate & Bywater, on briefs), 

for E.C.P. 

 The parties appeal from the equitable distribution decision 

of the circuit court. D.G.P. (husband) alleges that the trial 

court erred in distributing the marital assets. E.C.P. (wife) 

argues that the trial court erred in awarding her only a portion 

of her attorney's fees. 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. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

Equitable Distribution Award

 "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). If the trial court has considered the 

factors set out in Code § 20-107.3(E) and the evidence supports 

the trial court's conclusions, we will not disturb the trial 

court's equitable distribution award merely because it is 

unequal. Artis v. Artis, 10 Va. App. 356, 362, 392 S.E.2d 504, 

508 (1990). 

 The trial court awarded wife the largest single marital 

asset, the marital residence, which had an equity of $165,000. 

Wife was also awarded her pension. Husband was awarded his Boy 

Scout memorabilia collection with an estimated value of $60,000. 

 Other marital assets and debts were divided almost equally. 

 Husband argues that neither the evidence nor the factors set 

out in Code § 20-107.3(E) support the trial court's equitable 

distribution decision. While husband concedes wife made somewhat 

greater nonmonetary contributions to the family than he did, he 

asserts that the trial court failed to consider his greater 

monetary contributions. 

 The trial court considered all the statutory factors, but 

noted that "certain considerations and findings . . . bear 

particular mention." Specifically, the trial court found that 
 3 

both parties made significant monetary contributions to the 

family, and husband earned somewhat more money throughout the 

marriage. However, while wife's earnings "consistently went to 

benefit the family," husband "spent thousands of family dollars 

in pursuit of his sexual escapades." Husband also spent an 

estimated $60,000 on his Boy Scout memorabilia collection, which 

"far exceeded money one would be entitled to spend on a hobby 

without having to account for it or without having it taken into 

account at the conclusion of a marriage." 

 The trial court also noted the nonmonetary contributions, 

including the negative contributions, made by the parties. The 

trial court found that wife made the more significant nonmonetary 

contributions to the family. While husband worked long hours as 

an attorney, he also traveled away from the family for the 

purposes of adding to his scouting collection and participating 

in sexual liaisons. In the beginning, husband traveled only 

several times a quarter. Eventually husband was gone every other 

weekend, from noon on Friday until late afternoon on Sunday. 

Although husband denied having any sexual encounters on his scout 

collection trips, he admitted that he sometimes claimed to be on 

scouting trips when in fact he was pursuing sexual activities. 

 The trial court noted that almost ninety percent of wife's 

pension was marital property. Wife's pension had a cash 

withdrawal value of approximately $62,500. While wife's pension 

funds had continued to accrue, husband repeatedly withdrew 
 4 

retirement funds to spend on his Boy Scout memorabilia 

collection. Husband testified that he spent thousands of dollars 

of his federal government retirement funds and withdrew $12,000 

of marital funds held in an IRA to add to his collection. The 

evidence was inconclusive whether husband had other pension 

benefits from his years in private practice. By awarding the 

memorabilia collection to husband and the pension to wife, the 

trial court gave each party an unencumbered interest in assets of 

approximately equal value. We cannot say that that distribution 

was an abuse of the court's discretion. 

 Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's 

decision to award the marital home to wife. Wife had custody of 

the parties' two minor children. The trial court specifically 

found that husband's expenditures did not constitute waste, as 

they were not made in anticipation of a divorce. Booth v. Booth, 

7 Va. App. 22, 27, 371 S.E.2d 569, 572 (1988). In this case, 

however, husband's activities not only were detrimental to the 

marriage and the family by drawing him farther and farther away, 

but also were a financial drain on the marital assets. Thus, 

these activities were relevant in determining the distribution 

award. See Aster v. Gross, 7 Va. App. 1, 5-6, 371 S.E.2d 833, 

836 (1988). Moreover, "while equitable distribution is not a 

vehicle to punish behavior, the statutory guidelines authorize 

consideration of such behavior as having an adverse effect on the 

marriage and justifying an award that favors one spouse over the 
 5 

other." O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlin, 20 Va. App. 522, 527, 458 

S.E.2d 323, 325 (1995). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion in considering husband's activities in its 

equitable distribution award and in awarding wife a greater share 

of the marital assets. 

Attorney's Fees

 Wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion by 

awarding her only $2,500 out of $11,436 in attorney's fees. 

However, 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. 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. 

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

(1985). 

 Wife's annual income was approximately $70,000, while 

husband's was approximately $90,000. Wife had expended $5,500 in 

marital assets to pay her attorney. Husband was responsible for 

paying up to $1,800 for wife's therapy. Based on the number of 

issues involved and the respective abilities of the parties to 

pay, we cannot say that the award was unreasonable or that the 

trial judge abused his discretion in making the award. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.