COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Felton and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia 

ROBERT WAYNE INGALLS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0635-02-1 JUDGE WILLIAM H. HODGES 

 OCTOBER 8, 2002 

JULIE ANN INGALLS 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF YORK COUNTY 

N. Prentis Smiley, Jr., Judge 

 Kenneth B. Murov for appellant. 

 McClanahan Ingles (Martin, Ingles & Ingles, 

Ltd., on brief), for appellee. 

 Robert Wayne Ingalls, husband, appeals a decision of the 

trial judge denying his motion for a reduction in his spousal 

support obligation to Julie Ann Ingalls, wife. Husband contends 

on appeal that the trial judge erred in: (1) finding that 

wife's expenses had increased nominally; (2) finding that wife's 

receipt of $905 per month as her share of husband's military 

retirement was not a material change in wife's income; (3) 

finding that husband's income had not materially decreased; and 

(4) failing to reduce husband's spousal support obligation based 

on a material change in circumstances. Finding that the trial 

judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to modify the 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.
spousal support award, we affirm the decision of the trial 

judge. 

BACKGROUND

 The parties were divorced by final decree entered on 

January 20, 2000. The parties had four children who live with 

wife. On April 28, 2000, the trial judge held a hearing on 

several issues, including spousal support. By orders entered on 

August 3, 2000 and November 13, 2001, nunc pro tunc to April 28, 

2000, the trial judge ordered husband to pay wife spousal 

support of $1,800 per month. 

 Husband retired from the military in July 2001. He 

receives monthly income from civilian employment and military 

retirement benefits. On November 13, 2001, husband filed a 

motion for a reduction in his monthly spousal support obligation 

based upon his reduction in income since his retirement. 

Husband also alleged that wife's income had increased since she 

had been receiving her share of his military retirement 

benefits. Wife filed a motion for an increase in spousal 

support on the grounds that husband's expendable income had 

increased and that husband's contributions to savings and tax 

deferred investments had increased since the determination of 

permanent spousal support in April 2000. 

 The trial judge held hearings on the motions on December 

11, 2001 and January 31, 2002. By order entered on February 27, 

- 2 -
2002, the trial judge denied both of the motions, finding that 

neither party had established a material change in circumstances 

since the April 28, 2000 hearing. Both parties appealed the 

February 27, 2002 order. Wife's appeal is addressed in a 

separate opinion in Record No. 0758-02-1. 

ANALYSIS

 A party seeking modification of spousal support pursuant to 

Code § 20-109, bears the burden of proving "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). See also Barton v. Barton, 31 Va. App. 175, 

177-78, 522 S.E.2d 373, 374-75 (1999). "The material change 'must 

bear upon the financial needs of the dependent spouse or the 

ability of the supporting spouse to pay.'" Street v. Street, 25 

Va. App. 380, 386, 488 S.E.2d 665, 668 (1997) (en banc) (citation 

omitted). "The determination whether a spouse is entitled to [a 

reduction or increase in spousal] support, and if so how much, is 

a matter within the discretion of the [trial] court 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). 

I. Wife's Expenses 

 At the April 28, 2000 hearing, the trial judge found that 

wife's monthly expenses were $4,871. At the January 31, 2002 

- 3 -
hearing, wife presented evidence that her monthly expenses were 

$5,167. Husband introduced bank records and check registers 

from wife's bank account, arguing that the documents showed that 

wife's ten-month average of expenses from January 2001 through 

October 2001 was about $4,056 per month. Husband argues that 

this amount is materially and substantially lower than the 

$4,871 per month figure from April 28, 2000. 

 The trial judge found that wife's expenses included "total 

expenses for her family of four children and herself" so that he 

was unable to determine wife's needs as extracted from the needs 

of the wife and the children. The trial judge concluded that 

wife's expenses had increased "nominally" since April 2000, 

about $300 per month as indicated by wife's evidence. Credible 

evidence supports the trial judge's finding that, while there 

had been some change in wife's expenses, it was not a material 

change in circumstances. 

II. Wife's Receipt of her Share of Husband's Retirement

 Husband contends the trial judge erred in finding that 

wife's receipt of her share of his military retirement benefits 

was not a material change in circumstances. The evidence showed 

that in April 2000, the trial judge found wife's income was $193 

per month from interest earned on a sum of money she received as 

part of the equitable distribution award. Wife presented 

evidence that she had depleted much of the principal of that 

- 4 -
award, and the trial judge found that interest rates had 

decreased since April 2000 such that the imputation of this 

income was not "fair" "anymore." 

 The evidence also showed that wife receives $905 per month 

(gross) as her share of husband's military retirement. The 

trial judge found that wife "nets" about $800 per month from 

that retirement money. Given that wife's expenses had nominally 

increased and that she no longer had the imputed monthly income, 

the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the 

addition of the retirement income was not a material change in 

circumstances warranting a decrease in the spousal support 

award. 

III. Husband's Income

 Husband argues that the trial judge erred in finding that 

the decrease in his income upon his retirement was not a 

material change in circumstances. In April 2000, the trial 

judge found that husband's monthly income was $7,387. The 

evidence showed that since retirement husband was earning $7,150 

per month from employment and military retirement benefits. The 

difference in husband's income is $237 per month, or about 3% 

less than it was in April 2000. The trial judge did not abuse 

his discretion in finding that this difference was not a 

material change in circumstances. 

- 5 -
IV. Refusal to Reduce Spousal Support Award

 Husband contends the trial judge erred in not reducing his 

monthly spousal support obligation. Although wife had begun 

receiving a portion of husband's military retirement benefits, 

wife's expenses had increased nominally since April 2000, and 

she no longer received the $193 monthly income the trial judge 

imputed to her in April 2000. Furthermore, husband's monthly 

income was reduced by only 3% since April 2000. As the trial 

judge stated, "the numbers have changed a little bit, but on an 

analysis, they haven't changed much." Although husband alleges 

he is unable to make the monthly child and spousal support 

payments, the trial judge found that the spousal support and 

child support monthly payments, when added together, constituted 

only 40% of husband's monthly income. Moreover, the support 

payments covered the living expenses of five people, whereas 

husband was keeping 60% of his income to support only himself. 

Furthermore, the evidence showed that husband was continuing to 

save money and make IRA and 401K contributions under the current 

arrangement. The trial judge found that the parties were 

"basically in the same place they were in April of 2000" and 

that if he modified the spousal support award, the change "would 

be so minimal that it would be not worth a wad." Therefore, he 

declined to modify the spousal support award. The evidence 

supports the trial judge's ruling. 

- 6 -
 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. 

 Affirmed. 

- 7 -