COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

BRENDA LOUISE HUNTER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0773-97-1 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 

DARRELL EUGENE HUNTER 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON 

Christopher W. Hutton, Judge 

 (Frederic L. Moschel; Cumming, Hatchett & 

Jordan, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Stephen F. Forbes, on brief), for appellee. 

 Brenda Louise Hunter (wife) appeals the trial court's 

decision to reduce her spousal support. Wife contends that the 

trial court abused its discretion (1) by failing to include as 

financial resources of Darrell Eugene Hunter (husband) all income 

tax overpayments, voluntary pension contributions and earnings, 

and monetary contributions made by his live-in girlfriend; and 

(2) in finding a material change in circumstances justifying a 

reduction in spousal support. 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. 

Determination of Income

 Wife contends that the trial court abused its discretion by 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

failing to include in its determination of husband's income all 

estimated income tax overpayments made by husband's corporation, 

all monetary contributions by husband's live-in girlfriend, and 

all retirement fund contributions and earnings. We disagree. 

 The evidence established that husband's earnings, as 

reported on his 1996 W-2, were $83,170. The trial court 

determined that, due to some portion of the additional payments 

received by husband or retained by his corporation, husband's 

income was $90,925. It is apparent that the trial court found 

credible husband's explanations concerning the corporation's 

financial management, including the retained earnings and tax 

overpayments. Also, the trial court heard the evidence in 1995 

and was aware of the fluctuations in husband's business. 

 Contributions to living expenses made by husband's live-in 

girlfriend were strictly voluntary contributions. There is no 

statutory basis to require the trial court to include these 

voluntary contributions in husband's income. See

Code § 20-107.1(1). 

 Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing and the 

trial judge's familiarity with the case, the judge ruled that 

husband's income was higher than that reported on his 1996 W-2 

statement. The court was not required to incorporate in 

husband's income all items identified by wife, particularly in 

light of the demonstrated fluctuations in husband's business. 

We cannot say that the trial court's determination of husband's 
 3 

income was an abuse of discretion or was unsupported by the 

evidence. 
 4 

Reduction of Spousal Support

 Code § 20-109 provides that "upon petition of either party 

the court may increase, decrease or terminate spousal support and 

maintenance that may thereafter accrue . . . as the circumstances 

may make proper." "The moving party in a petition for 

modification of support is required to prove both a material 

change in circumstances and that this change warrants a 

modification of support." Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 8 Va. 

App. 601, 605, 383 S.E.2d 28, 30 (1989). 

 Wife contends that the trial court abused its discretion in 

finding that husband established a material change in 

circumstances sufficient to justify a reduction in her monthly 

spousal support from $1,338 to $936. However, based upon the 

evidence heard ore tenus, the trial court found that there was a 

material change in circumstances from those in existence at the 

time of the last hearing. The court noted that husband's 

fluctuations in income were not as wide ranging as previous 

fluctuations, and also noted that the parties presented differing 

evidence as to their respective incomes. 

 Wife's earnings had increased, although wife testified that 

the store where she worked would be replaced by another store and 

she was not guaranteed employment at the new store. While wife 

testified that her monthly expenses totaled approximately $3,500 

and were substantially unchanged from the time of the last 

hearing, husband presented evidence that wife's monthly 
 5 

expenditures were closer to $2,000. Wife testified that she had 

drawn $9,700 on a $15,000 equity line of credit to make home 

repairs, but she did not testify concerning any effect on her 

monthly expenses. Wife denied living with her boyfriend and 

denied receiving any financial assistance from him, although she 

admitted he contributed to some household food expenses. 

 Evidence supported the court's conclusion that husband's 

income had declined and wife's income had increased since the 

last hearing. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in determining that there was a material change in 

circumstances. Similarly, in light of the evidence found 

credible by the trial court, we cannot say that the court's $400 

reduction in monthly spousal support was an abuse of discretion. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.