COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elde r, Frank and Humphreys Argued at Richmond, Virginia
DAVID M. D. LANNES MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1321-04-2 JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK MAY 3, 2005 MARISOL FERNANDEZ LANNES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF HENRICO COUNTY Gary A. Hicks, Judge Janet E. Moran for appellant. Richard L. Locke (Robert W. Par tin; Locke & Partin, PLC, on brief), for appellee.

David M.D. Lannes, appellant/husband, conte nds the trial court er red in (1) improperly valuing husband’s business, AnnaZach Software; (2) setting child support; (3) setting spousal support; (4) granting spousal support for thirteen years; and (5) allowing each party to retain possession of the personal property obtained at the time of separation. Both parties request attorney’s fees on appeal. For the reasons stated, we affirm.
BACKGROUND Husband and wife were married on December 22, 1989 in New Orleans, Louisiana. The parties separated in August of 2002. Husba nd owns AnnaZach Software, a company which provides highly customized secur ity software and services to nuc lear power plants. AnnaZach has no physical assets, and husband is the only employee. The wife does not work, but has custody of the couple’s two minor children.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - A primary source of dispute between husba nd and wife is the value of AnnaZach Software. On November 2, 2003 the parties pres ented evidence to the trial court regarding equitable distribution, spousal support, and child s upport. Each presented expert testimony as to the value of AnnaZach. Husband’s expert, Dr . Stanley Feldman, using a fair market value approach, valued the business at $0. Wife’s expert, William Dacey, applied an intrinsic value approach and concluded AnnaZach’s worth to be $313,048. The experts differed in three major areas of husband’s income, business profit, and capitalization rate. On March 2, 2004, the trial court issued a le tter opinion accepting Mr . Dacey’s valuation. Based upon the parties’ incomes, business profit, and relative expenses, th e court awarded wife $2,500 per month spousal support for thirteen ye ars, and child support in the amount of $1,410.57 per month. The court allowed each party to retain possession of any personal property taken at the time of separation.
ANALYSIS EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION Husband contends the trial court erred in valuing AnnaZach software at $313,048, arguing first that the award was based upon evid ence that did not include the most current financial information, and second that the court applied inconsistent reasoning in determining husband’s salary, average income of the business, and capitalization rate . Husband’s expert, Dr. Feldman, valued the business at $0. Wife ’s expert, Mr. Dacey, set a value of $313,048. In its opinion letter, the trial court explained that it examined the various factors presented by both experts and determined the intrinsic va lue of AnnaZach software to be $313,048. Because intrinsic value must depend on the fact s of the case, we give great weight to the findings of the trial court. Howell v. Howell , 31 Va. App. 332, 339, 523 S.E.2d 514, 517 (2000). “We affirm if the evidence supports the findings and if the trial cour t finds a reasonable- 3 - evaluation based on proven methodology and on the appl ication of it to the pa rticular facts of the case.” Id. (citation omitted). The “value of property is an issue of fact, not of law.” Id. at 340, 523 S.E.2d at 518. We will not distur b a trial court’s finding of th e value of an asset unless the finding is plainly wrong or unsupporte d by the evidence. Rowe v. Rowe , 24 Va. App. 123, 140, 480 S.E.2d 760, 768 (1997); Traylor v. Traylor , 19 Va. App. 761, 763-64, 454 S.E.2d 744, 746 (1995). Further, absent clear evidence to the cont rary in the record, the ju dgment of a trial court comes to an appellate court with a presumption th at the law was correctly applied to the facts. Yarborough v. Commonwealth , 217 Va. 971, 978, 234 S.E.2d 286, 291 (1977). In challenging the court’s decision on appeal, the party seeking reversal, in this case, husband, bears the burden of demonstrating error on the part of the trial court. D’Agnese v. D’Agnese , 22 Va. App. 147, 153, 468 S.E.2d 140, 143 (1996) (citing Lutes v. Alexander , 14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1992)). As to Dr. Feldman’s testimony, the record filed with this Co urt does not contain Feldman’s direct testimony. The record contains only his cross-examination, re-direct, re-cross, and re-direct testimony. The record contains ne ither the direct nor cross-examination testimony of Mr. Dacey. It contains only the rebuttal, and the cross-examination and re-direct rebuttal testimony of Mr. Dacey. 1 Thus, we are limited to testimony adduced in Dr. Feldman’s cross-examination and Mr. Dacey’s rebutta l to resolve the issues before us. There is nothing in the record for us to determine if the trial court’s rejection of Feldman’s valuation was error. Here, as is ofte n the case, we have conf licting testimony of two experts. The trial court accepted Dacey’s valuati on, rejecting Feldman’s. Appellant, to sustain his burden on appeal, must convince us the tr ial court’s finding is pl ainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence. Rowe , 24 Va. App. at 140, 532 S.E.2d at 786.

1 No statement of facts in lieu of a transcript was filed in accordance with Rule 5A:8(c).- 4 - While certain facts can be gleaned from the cross-examination of Feldman and the rebuttal testimony of Dacey, without the full testimony of each expert , we are left with the futile task of having to interpret a portion of each expe rt’s opinion without the context of the testimony in full. Thus, from the record before us it is impossible to determine how and why Feldman arrived at his ultimate opinion on valuation. “‘[A]n appellant has the prim ary responsibility of ensuring that a complete record is furnished to an appellate court so that the errors assigned may be decided properly.’” Twardy v. Twardy , 14 Va. App. 651, 654, 419 S.E.2d 848, 850 (1992) (quoting Ferguson v. Commonwealth , 10 Va. App. 189, 194, 390 S.E.2d 782, 785 (1990)). The importance of the record is obvious, for it is axiomatic that an appe llate court’s review of the case is limited to the record on appeal. See Turner v. Commonwealth , 2 Va. App. 96, 99, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986). Without providing this Court with the direct testimony of his expert , appellant has failed to show how the trial court erred in accep ting Dacey’s valuation over Feld man’s. Without a complete record, we cannot say that the determinati on of the trial court was plainly wrong. “If an insufficient record is furnished, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.” White v. Morano , 249 Va. 27, 30, 452 S.E.2d 856, 858 (1995). As appellant provides us no basis in the record upon which to consid er his allegation of error, we find no error in the trial court's equitable distribution award. 2

2 Husband contends the record is adequate to support his position, referencing the detailed findings in the trial court’s opinion letter dated March 2, 2004. Specifically, husband refers to the trial court’s findi ng that he did not consider the 2003 income. However, we cannot determine whether the trial court erred in not considering the 2003 income because we do not have the benefit of the experts’ complete testimony.- 5 - CHILD AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT Appellant argues that the trial court erred in setting child support. Appellant claims the $144,000 annual income, or $12,000 per month, is based on the valuation of AnnaZach Software which erroneously failed to include information available for 2003. Appellant also contends the tr ial court erred in setting the amount of spousal support. Essentially, appellant argues that the award of spousal support is predicated upon the valuation of the business. Having found no error in the valuation of AnnaZ ach, we find no error in the trial court’s awards of spousal and child support. Husband next contends the trial court’s award of spousal support for a period of thirteen years was an abuse of discretion. Husband argues that the trial court’s finding that the wife “sacrificed her career goals in order to stay home with the parties’ two children” was not consistent with the evidence. He further cont ends that the trial court did not take into consideration the fact that the wife was able to purchase a home afte r the separation, has no mortgage or rent payment, and has received spousal support for two years. We disagree. Code § 20-107.1(C) provides that “[t]he c ourt, in its discretion, may decree that maintenance and support of a spouse may be made in periodic payments for a defined duration, or in periodic payments for an undefined duration, or in a lump sum award, or in any combination thereof.” We find ample evidence in the record to support the trial court’s determination. The undisputed evidence is that the wife has a law de gree from the University of Mississippi, but has not worked since 1994. She has remained at home and cared for her children, currently ages 12 and 9, since her children were infa nts. The trial court stated th at the amount of the award “is sufficient to offset Ms. Lannes’ personal expenses while she tran sitions into a new career with earning potential more suited to her advanced educational qualif ications.” Clearly, the court- 6 - took into account Ms. Lannes’ current and future financial condition when setting this award for thirteen years. Finding no “clear abuse of disc retion,” we will not disturb the trial court’s decision to award support for thirteen years. See Northcutt v. Northcutt , 39 Va. App. 192, 196, 571 S.E.2d 912, 914 (2002) (“Whether and how much spousal support will be awarded is a matter of discretion for the trial court.”).
PERSONAL PROPERTY Appellant contends the trial court erred in making the distribution of personal property without valuing the property. The wife valu es the personal household furnishings at $19,000
while the husband attributed a value of $47,000 to the same propert y. The trial court noted that each party had valued the personal property without offering any supporting evidence. The court ruled that “[s]ince the parties have already se parated the property, a nd there is no basis upon which to make a value distribu tion, the Court declines to make any award with respect to personal property.” The court allowed each party to retain possession of the property that he or she took at the date of separation. The trial court may not base its valuations on mere guesswork, but the parties have the burden to provide the court with sufficient evidence from which it can value their property.
Bosserman v. Bosserman , 9 Va. App. 1, 5, 384 S.E.2d 104, 107 (1989). While an owner is entitled to value his own prope rty, a trial court is not bound to accept that testimony. See Haynes, Executrix v. Glenn , 197 Va. 746, 751, 91 S.E.2d 433, 437 (1956). It is generally recognized that the opinion testimony of the owner of property, because of his relations hip as owner, is competent and admissible on the question of the value of such property, regardless of his knowledge of property values. It is not necessary to show that he was acquainted with the ma rket value of such property or that he is an expert on values. He is deemed qualified by reason of his relationship as owner to give es timates of the value of what he- 7 - owns. The weight of such testim ony is, of course, affected by his knowledge of the value. Id. at 750, 91 S.E.2d at 436. “When the party with the burden of proof on an issue fails for lack of proof, he cannot prevail on that question.” Bowers v. Bowers , 4 Va. App. 610, 617, 359 S.E.2d 546, 550 (1987). Thus, we will not reverse the trial court’s valuati on determination “where the parties have had an adequate opportunity to introduce evidence but have failed to do so.” Id. In this case, the trial court, finding each party’s assertions of value to be uncorroborated, declined to make an award. Contrary to husba nd’s contention, the tria l court did not make a distribution of the personal prope rty. The court simply declined to make an award because the parties failed to produce sufficient evidence as to va lue. Each party retained the property in their possession. See Anderson v. Anderson , 29 Va. App. 673, 691, 514 S.E.2d 369, 379 (1999) (“In the absence of evidence upon which to base an equitable distribut ion of the parties’ tangible personal property, no distribution co uld be made and the court did no t err in failing to address the issue.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we w ill not disturb the judgment of the trial court.
ATTORNEY’S FEES Both parties request that this Court award costs and attorney’s fees expended on appeal. Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, we hold th at husband’s arguments have no legal merit and wife is entitled to a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees expended in this appeal.
See O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin , 23 Va. App. 690, 695, 479 S.E.2d 98, 100 (1996). Accordingly, we remand for an award of attorney ’s fees incurred in this app eal, which should also include any additional attorney’s fees and co sts incurred at the remand hearing.- 8 - CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgm ent of the trial court. We remand to the trial court for an award of attorney’s fees incu rred by wife in this appeal and at the remand hearing. Affirmed and remanded.