COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

JERRY HOWARD JUMP 

v. Record No. 1043-95-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

PATRICIA COLLINS JUMP FEBRUARY 6, 1996 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG 

AND COUNTY OF JAMES CITY 

Samuel T. Powell, III, Judge 

 Lawrence D. Diehl for appellant. 

 Willafay McKenna (McKenna & Konstantinou, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 In this appeal from a decree of equitable distribution by 

the Circuit Court of the City of Williamsburg and County of James 

City (trial court), Jerry Howard Jump (husband) contends that the 

trial court erroneously classified certain parcels of real estate 

as marital property and failed to give proper credit against the 

marital estate for marital debts. Finding no error, we affirm 

the judgment of the trial court. 

 As the parties are familiar with the facts contained in the 

record, we reference only those pertinent to our reason for 

affirming the decree. 

 In reviewing an equitable distribution award on appeal, we 

recognize that the trial court's job is a difficult one. 

Accordingly, we rely heavily on the discretion of the trial judge 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

in weighing the many considerations and circumstances that are 

presented in each case. Artis v. Artis, 4 Va. App. 132, 137, 354 

S.E.2d 813, 815 (1987). The trial court's judgment will not be 

disturbed unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. 

Keyser v. Keyser, 7 Va. App. 405, 409, 374 S.E.2d 698, 701 

(1988); Code § 8.01-680. Fashioning the award lies within the 

sound discretion of the trial court and will not be set aside in 

the absence of the complaining party showing by the record that 

an abuse of discretion has occurred. 

 In the case before us, the property was titled in the joint 

names of the parties, with the right of survivorship, and 

presumptively should be classified as marital; however, that 

presumption may be rebutted by presentation of sufficient 

evidence. Huger v. Huger, 16 Va. App. 785, 788, 433 S.E.2d 255, 

257 (1993). Here, the trial court's finding discloses that it 

rejected husband's contention that the presumption had been 

rebutted. Its finding is supported by the record. 

 Patricia Collins Jump (wife) and husband became liable on a 

$100,000 note secured by the subject real estate. The property 

was later conveyed by a deed to third parties who, as a part of 

the consideration, agreed to discharge the $100,000 debt secured 

by that property. The third parties failed to make the required 

payments and, in lieu of foreclosure, conveyed the property back 

to husband and wife as tenants by the entirety with the right of 

survivorship. We cannot say the trial court was plainly wrong, 
- 3 - 

abused its discretion, or that its decision was without evidence 

to support its finding that the subject real estate is marital 

property. Moreover, under the facts in this record, nothing 

contained in Code § 20-107.3(A)(3)(f) or (g) requires a different 

conclusion. 

 The remaining issues raised by husband involve trial court 

discretion. We cannot say that the record discloses abuse of 

trial court discretion. Moreover, even if applicable to this 

cause, we are not bound by the unpublished opinions cited by 

counsel for husband. 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, 

reserving to wife the right to apply to the circuit court for 

such further fees and costs, if any, as that court may deem 

equitable. 

 Affirmed.