COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Bumgardner and 

 Senior Judge Hodges 

HAYDEN WAYNE SIZEMORE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1136-01-3 PER CURIAM 

 DECEMBER 11, 2001 

KATHRYN MAE KIRK SIZEMORE 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SCOTT COUNTY 

Ford C. Quillen, Judge 

 (Robert Austin Vinyard, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Jeffery A. Sturgill; Sturgill & Kennedy, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Hayden Wayne Sizemore (husband) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court ordering him to pay Kathryn Mae Kirk Sizemore (wife) 

spousal support based upon imputed income. On appeal, husband 

contends the trial court abused its discretion by imputing to him 

income from his former business and ordering him to pay wife 

ongoing spousal support. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of 

the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. 

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

See Rule 5A:27. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable 

inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party 

 

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

designated for publication.
prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 

391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). 

Procedural Background

 The parties were married on June 23, 1973. After living 

separate and apart for over one year, wife was awarded a no-fault 

divorce on December 8, 1998. In the final decree of divorce, 

husband was ordered to pay wife support in the amount of $4,000 

per month. On February 28, 2000 the circuit court reduced 

husband's spousal support obligation to $750 per week, effective 

December 6, 1999. Thereafter, husband moved the court to 

reconsider its findings. After extensive hearings concerning the 

financial condition of the parties and businesses involved, the 

court imputed to husband income of $20,000 per year on account of 

income earned by his present wife in her capacity as owner of 

husband's former business. The court reduced husband's support 

obligation to $1,000 per month effective July 1, 2001 and assessed 

a total arrearage of support owed by husband to wife of $35,950. 

Analysis

 "The decision to impute income is within the sound 

discretion of the trial court and its [decision] will not be 

reversed unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence." 

Blackburn v. Michael, 30 Va. App. 95, 102, 515 S.E.2d 780, 784 

(1999) (citation omitted). 

 Over a short period of time following his divorce from 

wife, husband's income had gone from approximately $500,000 per 

- 2 -
year to less than $20,000. Husband owned ambulance businesses 

during the parties' marriage. After a period of time, husband 

allegedly lost his control or ownership of these businesses and 

later filed bankruptcy on behalf of himself and one of the 

corporations, Good Neighbor Ambulance Services, Inc. Prior to 

declaring bankruptcy, husband remarried and purchased an 

expensive home with his new wife. After husband's spousal 

support obligation went into arrears, husband conveyed his one 

half interest in the new house to his present wife. 

 During the decline of husband's ambulance service business, 

he began a business in the collection of accounts for other 

ambulance services. Husband originally entirely owned the 

business, later made his new wife a fifty-fifty partner, and now 

claims no interest in the business whatsoever. Husband states 

his new wife owns and operates the business out of their home. 

However, husband's new wife also earns approximately $40,000 

annually from full-time employment outside the home. Based upon 

husband's prior direct involvement in the business, the court 

imputed to him the amount of $20,000 annual income. The court 

found husband's assertion that he was not presently involved in 

the business and was not voluntarily underemployed incredible. 

"The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the 

evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the 

opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented." 

Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730, 

- 3 -
732 (1995). We find that in weighing the relative needs, 

earning capacities and abilities of the parties, their ages, the 

duration of the marriage, and the manner in which the parties 

were accustomed to living during the marriage, the court did not 

abuse its discretion in imputing income to husband or in 

determining the spousal support award. Accordingly, we summarily 

affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed. 

- 4 -