COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

DORA L. MOORE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0470-97-4 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 

ALPHONSO W. MOORE 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY 

Frank A. Hoss, Jr., Judge 

 (Bryant A. Webb, on brief), for appellant. 

 (David H. White, on brief), for appellee. 

 Dora L. Moore (wife) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court awarding her less than fifty percent of the marital share 

of husband's pension and considering the negative equity of a 

piece of marital real estate when calculating its value. Wife 

withdrew three other issues concerning custody and child support 

initially raised. 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. 

 Rule 5A:27. 

 Pension

 "Fashioning an equitable distribution award lies within the 

sound discretion of the trial judge and that award will not be 

set aside unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to 

support it." Srinivasan v. Srinivasan, 10 Va. App. 728, 732, 396 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

S.E.2d 675, 678 (1990). "Unless it appears from the record that 

the trial judge has not considered or has misapplied one of the 

statutory mandates, this Court will not reverse on appeal." 

Ellington v. Ellington, 8 Va. App. 48, 56, 378 S.E.2d 626, 630 

(1989). 

 The trial court determined that the marital share of 

husband's Navy pension was approximately ninety percent of the 

total pension. Under Code § 20-107.3(G)(1), the trial court was 

authorized to award wife no more than fifty percent of the 

marital share. In this case, both husband and wife worked during 

the marriage and both parties had earned pension benefits in 

their own names. The trial court considered the parties' marital 

property, including wife's separate pension benefits, and awarded 

wife thirty percent of husband's monthly pension benefits. 

Similarly, the trial court awarded husband thirty percent of 

wife's pension. 

 Wife acknowledged that the Virginia statutory scheme of 

equitable distribution does not presume an equal division of 

marital assets. See Alphin v. Alphin, 15 Va. App. 395, 404, 424 

S.E.2d 572, 577 (1992). The equitable distribution decree 

demonstrated that the trial court considered the statutory 

factors before making its equitable distribution decision. 

Therefore, because the trial court considered the statutory 

factors, based its decision upon the evidence, and did not abuse 

its discretion, we find no grounds for reversing the court's 
 3 

decision concerning wife's share of husband's pension. 

Real Estate

 The trial court set out in detail, based upon the evidence 

presented by the parties, the parties' respective expenses and 

income derived from the various pieces of real estate purchased 

during the marriage. Based upon the evidence, the trial court 

found that marital property located in Jacksonville, Florida had 

a negative equity, i.e., the outstanding mortgage attached to the 

property exceeded its estimated market value. Wife contends, 

without citation to authority, that a trial court may not 

consider negative equity. We find no support for this assertion. 

 Code § 20-107.3(C) expressly authorizes the trial court to 

"apportion and order the payment of the debts of the parties." 

Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's calculation of 

the value of this piece of property based upon its outstanding 

debt. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.