COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

THERESA LOUISE BEDARD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 3199-96-1 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 1, 1997 

MICHAEL SCOTT BEDARD 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE 

V. Thomas Forehand, Jr., Judge 

 (Barry Kantor; Christie & Kantor, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Theresa Louise Bedard (wife) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court denying her spousal support. Wife contends that 

the trial court erred in (1) denying her spousal support where 

there was no bar to support and she received a divorce from 

Michael Scott Bedard (husband) on the grounds of desertion; and 

(2) failing to reserve her right to spousal support in the event 

of a change in circumstances. Upon reviewing the record and 

opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. 

 Rule 5A:27. 

Spousal Support

 The evidence was received by a commissioner in chancery, who 

recommended that the parties' respective requests for spousal 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

support be denied. The commissioner noted that the parties were 

married for less than five years, that wife had supported herself 

prior to the marriage, and that there was no change in her 

standard of living prior to, during, or after the marriage. The 

parties' monthly net incomes were $1,907 and $1,215, 

respectively, for husband and wife. The commissioner noted that 

he had considered the statutory factors and husband's desertion 

of wife. 

 The trial court reviewed the commissioner's report and heard 

argument on the parties' exceptions. The court found that the 

evidence supported the commissioner's recommendation that both 

parties be denied spousal support. 

 In awarding spousal support, the chancellor 

must consider the relative needs and 

abilities of the parties. He is guided by 

the nine factors that are set forth in Code 

§ 20-107.1. When the chancellor has given 

due consideration to these factors, his 

determination will not be disturbed on appeal 

except for a clear abuse of discretion. 

Collier v. Collier, 2 Va. App. 125, 129, 341 S.E.2d 827, 829 

(1986). We cannot say the court's denial of spousal support to 

wife was a clear abuse of discretion. 

Reservation of Support

 Wife contends that the trial court erred by failing to 

reserve her right to seek spousal support in the future. She 

admits she did not request a reservation of support in her bill 

of complaint, but argues that the request was implied in her 

request for spousal support. We disagree. Nowhere in wife's 
 3 

initial bill of complaint, in her exceptions to the 

commissioner's report, or in her motion to rehear did wife 

request a reservation of support. While wife asserts that she 

requested a reservation during oral argument on the exceptions to 

the commissioner's report, we have no transcript of that hearing. 

 Wife included in her exceptions to the court's final decree "the 

refusal of the Court to grant [wife] an award of spousal support, 

or at least a reservation of right to receive an award of spousal 

support upon a change of circumstances," but nothing in the text 

of the order refers to wife's request for a reservation of 

support. 

 Wife bears the burden to establish her affirmative request 

for a reservation of support by record proof. Nothing in the 

record before us indicates that wife made a timely request. The 

court is not obligated to reserve support sua sponte. See

Thomasson v. Thomasson, 225 Va. 394, 397 n.1, 302 S.E.2d 63, 65 

n.1 (1983); D'Auria v. D'Auria, 1 Va. App. 455, 462, 340 S.E.2d 

164, 168 (1986). Therefore, wife has not demonstrated that the 

trial court committed reversible error in failing to reserve 

spousal support. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.