COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Coleman and Overton 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

JUDY POWELL GREENE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0218-97-3 JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

 JANUARY 27, 1998 

TERRY LEE POWELL 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY 

George E. Honts, III, Judge 

 James V. Doss, III, for appellant. 

 Andrew G. Mauck (Mays & Valentine, on brief), 

for appellee. 

 Judy Powell Greene (wife) appeals from a decree of the 

Circuit Court of Rockbridge County (trial court) that suspended 

the obligation of Terry L. Powell (husband) to pay her spousal 

support. Wife contends that the trial court erroneously failed 

to consider her medical and rehabilitative evidence and 

erroneously based its decision on the fact that she was 

cohabiting with her boyfriend. Finding no error, we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court. 

 In our review of the issues, we do not have the benefit of a 

transcript of the various hearings held on motion of the parties. 

 In lieu thereof, we have a certified statement of facts. As the 

parties are conversant with the record, we reference only those 

matters necessary to an understanding of this opinion. Upon 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

familiar principles, we view the facts in the light most 

favorable to the prevailing party below. 

 The parties married on July 11, 1970 and were divorced by a 

decree entered on March 30, 1994. That decree incorporated a 

property settlement agreement (PSA) which provided, in relevant 

part, that husband would pay wife $1,400 monthly spousal support 

subject to the following: 

 The parties acknowledge that this amount was 

agreed upon in the expectation that Wife 

would obtain employment (although she is not 

at present employed) at the best wage level 

available to her and that Wife's obtaining of 

such a job would not in itself be grounds for 

modification thereof. The parties further 

agree that this support amount may be 

modified from time to time, upon application 

of either party to a court of appropriate 

jurisdiction, and upon proper showing of the 

moving party therein. 

 By motion filed May 24, 1996, husband sought to reduce or 

terminate spousal support paid to wife. After a hearing on 

husband's motion, the trial court reduced the spousal support to 

$1,000 per month, ordered husband to pay $200 monthly on a 

previously adjudicated arrearage of $2,237.27, and ordered wife 

to submit evidence that she was engaged in rehabilitative 

counseling. The written statement in lieu of a transcript does 

not disclose the necessity for further counseling. The court 

also ordered the parties to appear in December 1996 for review. 

At the December hearing, the court ordered husband to pay monthly 

spousal support of $500 for January through March 1997, after 

which time support was suspended. 
- 3 - 

 A judgment of the trial court is presumed correct and will 

not be set aside on the ground that it is contrary to the 

evidence unless it appears that such judgment is plainly wrong or 

without evidence to support it. See Dodge v. Dodge, 2 Va. App. 

238, 242, 343 S.E.2d 363, 365 (1986); Code § 8.01-680. "The 

burden is upon the party appealing to point out the error in the 

decree and to show how and why it is wrong." Broom v. Broom, 15 

Va. App. 497, 503, 425 S.E.2d 90, 94 (1992). On review, "the 

decision of the trial judge is peculiarly entitled to respect[,] 

for he saw the parties, heard the witnesses testify and was in 

closer touch with the situation than [the appellate court], which 

is limited to a review of the written record." Brown v. Brown, 

218 Va. 196, 200, 237 S.E.2d 89, 92 (1977). 

 Wife argues that the trial court erred when it suspended her 

spousal support despite the evidence of her medical and 

rehabilitative conditions. We find no error on the part of the 

trial court based upon the record presented to us on appeal. 

Although the certified statement of facts in lieu of a transcript 

notes that wife presented evidence of her medical and 

rehabilitative conditions, the statement includes no details from 

which we can hold that the trial court was plainly wrong. 

 Wife further argues that, under the parties' agreement, the 

sole criterion for establishing the level of spousal support was 

wife's employment. We disagree. We read the agreement to 

require nothing more than evidence otherwise sufficient to 
- 4 - 

establish changed circumstances warranting a modification of 

support. 

 Finally, wife appears to contend that the trial court based 

its decision solely on the ground that she lives with a man who 

is not her husband. Citing Hollowell v. Hollowell, 6 Va. App. 

417, 369 S.E.2d 451 (1988), she asserts that the trial court 

erred when it so limited its decision. We again disagree. 

In Hollowell, the sole evidence given by the husband to support 

his motion to end his spousal support obligation was alleged 

misconduct of the wife. The wife's misconduct, not economic 

factors, was the basis offered in Hollowell to justify the 

termination of support. Here, because of the limited nature of 

the factual record on appeal, we cannot say that the trial 

court's decision was based upon misconduct rather than economic 

factors. The evidence indicated that wife's economic 

intertwining with her new partner impacted her need for continued 

support from husband. Wife testified that her boyfriend was 

gainfully employed and contributed to their "joint living 

expenses." She added that "except for a marriage license, the 

relationship enjoyed by [wife] and her boyfriend was 'husband and 

wife.'" The statement of facts fails to show the dollar amounts 

of the joint living expenses. By failing to show that the trial 

court's decision was clearly wrong for economic reasons or was 

based upon an improper factor such as wife's misconduct, wife has 

not met her burden to prove its decision must be reversed. 
- 5 - 

 Accordingly, because wife has failed to meet her burden to 

show that the trial court's decision was plainly wrong, for the 

reasons stated, its judgment is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.