COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

GREGORY P. STONEMAN 

v. Record No. 0943-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

VICKIE A. STONEMAN DECEMBER 5, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY 

George F. Tidey, Judge 

 (Carl J. Witmeyer, II; Frank G. Uvanni; 

Chalkley & Witmeyer, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Deanna D. Cook; Bremner & Janus, on brief), 

 for appellee. 

 Gregory P. Stoneman (husband) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court denying his motion for a reduction in his spousal 

support payments to Vickie A. Stoneman (wife). Husband's appeal 

raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial judge erred 

in failing to consider the equitable distribution award when he 

awarded spousal support; (2) whether the trial judge erred by not 

considering wife's ability to support herself; and (3) whether 

the trial judge erred in not considering wife's changed expenses 

following the equitable distribution award as a material change 

in circumstances warranting a reduction in spousal support. Upon 

reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude 

that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily 

affirm the circuit court's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

Error in the Initial Spousal Support Amount

 This current proceeding began when husband filed a motion to 

reduce spousal support because of a material change in 

circumstances. He filed the motion a month after the final 

decree set the amount of spousal support. Husband did not appeal 

the final decree. Husband now alleges that the trial judge 

failed to consider the effect of the equitable distribution award 

before awarding spousal support to wife. 

 Code § 8.01-675.3 requires a notice of appeal to be filed 

"within thirty days from the date of any final judgment order, 

decree or conviction." Rule 5A:6 also provides that "[n]o appeal 

shall be allowed unless, within 30 days after entry of final 

judgment or other appealable order or decree, counsel files with 

the clerk of the trial court a notice of appeal." Rule 5A:6(a). 

 The trial judge's initial finding of the proper amount of 

spousal support became res judicata when husband did not appeal 

that decree to this Court. Hall v. Hall, 9 Va. App. 426, 428, 

388 S.E.2d 660, 670 (1990). Thus, husband has waived his right 

to appeal any alleged errors in that initial decision. 

Therefore, allegations of error in the initial award of spousal 

support are not properly raised in this appeal and will not be 

considered. 

Material Change in Circumstances

 Code § 20-109 provides that "[u]pon petition of either party 

the court may increase, decrease or terminate spousal support and 
 3 

maintenance that may thereafter accrue . . . as the circumstances 

may make proper." To obtain relief pursuant to Code § 20-109, 

"[t]he 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). "[T]he 'circumstances' which make 'proper' an 

increase, reduction or cessation of spousal support under Code 

§ 20-109 are financial and economic ones." Hollowell v. 

Hollowell, 6 Va. App. 417, 419, 369 S.E.2d 451, 452-53 (1988). 

 Husband alleges that the trial judge erred by failing to 

consider wife's ability to support herself. To the extent 

husband seeks a review of the initial support decision, that 

argument is barred, as we have stated, by Rule 5A:6(a). However, 

husband also phrases a portion of his argument as a material 

change in wife's circumstances. We will address the question in 

that light. 

 Husband argued in the trial court that wife used the 

equitable distribution award to reduce her expenses and then 

unjustifiably increased her expenses. He contended that her 

actions constituted a material change in circumstances warranting 

a reduction in spousal support. The trial judge found 

insufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances. We 

agree. 

 Pursuant to the terms of the equitable distribution decree, 
 4 

husband paid $48,000 to wife at the time of the decree. Husband 

also was required to pay wife $252,000, plus interest, payable at 

the rate of $75,000 a year. With these funds, wife was able to 

adjust her expenses. Wife testified that she had paid or was 

paying her outstanding credit card debts. Wife also expended 

large sums on home repairs. 

 Credible evidence supports the trial judge's finding that no 

material change in circumstances had occurred after the initial 

spousal support determination. As noted by the trial judge, wife 

"has used some of her assets to adjust her monthly expenses." We 

agree that wife's use of her share of the marital property 

"should not inure to [husband's] benefit." 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.