COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

DAVID STEWART JONES 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0139-97-3 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 1, 1997 

ARLEEN CATHERINE JONES 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG 

Mosby G. Perrow, III, Judge 

 (Gregory P. Cochran; Caskie & Frost, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 (James G. Hunter, III; Jennifer E. Stille; 

O'Keeffe & Spies, on brief), for appellee. 

 David Stewart Jones (husband) appeals the equitable 

distribution decision of the circuit court. Husband contends 

that the trial judge erred in (1) setting the amount of monthly 

spousal support paid to Arleen Catherine Jones (wife); (2) 

awarding wife a fifty percent interest in Advertising Design, 

Inc.; and (3) failing to value and allocate the parties' personal 

property and household furnishings. 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. 

Spousal Support

 "The determination whether a spouse is entitled to support, 

and if so how much, is a matter within the discretion of the 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

[trial judge] and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is 

clear that some injustice has been done." Dukelow v. Dukelow, 2 

Va. App. 21, 27, 341 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1986). In determining an 

award of spousal support, the trial judge must consider the 

factors listed in Code § 20-107.1. See Collier v. Collier, 2 Va. 

App. 125, 129, 341 S.E.2d 827, 829 (1986). The trial judge, 

however, is not required to quantify or elaborate what weight or 

consideration it has given to each factor, as long as the judge's 

findings have support in the evidence presented. See Woolley v. 

Woolley, 3 Va. App. 337, 345, 349 S.E.2d 422, 426 (1986). 

 Wife presented evidence that she had monthly expenses of 

$3,466, monthly earnings of $1,625, and monthly shortfalls of 

approximately $2,000. The trial judge awarded wife $1,500 in 

monthly spousal support. In light of wife's needs and husband's 

ability to pay, we find no error. 

 The trial judge considered the statutory factors, which 

include "provisions made with regard to the marital property 

under Code § 20-107.3." The award of spousal support was made 

contemporaneously with the trial judge's determination of the 

value of the parties' marital assets and division of that value. 

 The record does not support the husband's argument that the 

trial judge failed to consider the statutory factors. 

 Husband argues that the "total" amount of monthly support, 

including child support, is excessive. That argument is without 

merit. The amount of child support awarded is not a statutory 
 3 

factor to be considered by the trial judge when determining 

spousal support. See Lambert v. Lambert, 10 Va. App. 623, 

628-29, 395 S.E.2d 207, 210 (1990). Accordingly, we hold that 

the trial judge's award of support is supported by the record and 

was not an abuse of discretion. 

Advertising Design, Inc.

 The parties agreed that Advertising Design, Inc. was a 

marital asset. The parties did not agree on the value of the 

business, and both parties presented evidence as to its worth. 

The trial judge valued the business at $175,000, well within the 

estimates of $159,000 and $238,958 presented by the parties' 

experts. 

 The record indicates that the parties agreed to an equal 

division of their marital assets, except for Advertising Design, 

Inc. While there is no presumption favoring equal division of 

marital property in Virginia, see Alphin v. Alphin, 15 Va. App. 

395, 404, 424 S.E.2d 572, 577 (1992), neither does an equal 

division demonstrate error. 

 In this instance, although husband was the primary wage 

earner throughout most of the marriage, the parties jointly 

assumed the risks associated with husband's business. Marital 

assets, including the home, were posted as collateral for 

business loans. The parties worked as a unit for many of their 

years of marriage. 

 We find no error in the trial judge's award of fifty percent 
 4 

of the value of the business to the wife. 

Personal Property

 Husband contends that the trial judge erred in failing to 

value and allocate the parties' personal property and household 

furnishings. The record indicates that husband's sole evidence 

regarding these items was his estimate that unspecified 

"household furnishings" were worth $5,000. 

 The litigants have the burden to present 

evidence sufficient for the court to 

discharge its duty. When the party with the 

burden of proof on an issue fails for lack of 

proof, he cannot prevail on that question. 

"[T]he burden is always on the parties to 

present sufficient evidence to provide the 

basis on which a proper determination can be 

made . . . ." 

Bowers v. Bowers, 4 Va. App. 610, 617, 359 S.E.2d 546, 550 

(1987). Husband failed to present sufficient evidence from which 

the trial judge could determine the items to be distributed and 

their value. Therefore, the trial judge did not err in failing 

to distribute or value these unspecified items. 

 Accordingly, the decree is summarily affirmed. 

 Affirmed.