COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

PAUL E. WILLIAMS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2122-97-4 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 21, 1998 

LUCILLE I. WILLIAMS 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Dennis J. Smith, Judge 

 (Edward V. O'Connor, Jr.; Byrd, Mische, 

Bevis, Bowen, Joseph & O'Connor, on briefs), 

for appellant. 

 (Dennis M. Hottell; Carolyn T. Hogans; 

Dennis M. Hottell & Associates, on brief), 

for appellee. 

 Paul E. Williams appeals the decision of the circuit court 

awarding spousal support to his wife, Lucille I. Williams. The 

husband contends that the trial judge failed to properly consider 

(1) the parties' earning capacities, obligations, and financial 

resources; (2) the standard of living established during the 

marriage; (3) the property interests of the parties, and (4) the 

evidence concerning the value of an outstanding marital debt. 

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. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

Spousal Support

 The husband challenges the trial judge's determination of 

spousal support under the statutory factors set out in Code 

§ 20-107.1. On appeal, we review the trial judge's decision for 

an abuse of discretion. 

 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). 

Parties' Earning Capacities, Obligations

and Financial Resources

 The husband contends that the trial judge failed to properly 

consider the parties' earning capacities, obligations and 

financial resources. Specifically, he argued that the judge 

erred by failing to impute income to wife. 

 Although a party seeking spousal support is obligated to 

earn as much as is reasonably possible in order to reduce the 

amount of support needed, the decision whether to impute income 

is left to the discretion of the trial judge. See Srinivasan v. 

Srinivasan, 10 Va. App. 728, 734, 396 S.E.2d 675, 679 (1990). 

The evidence proved that the wife had a high-school degree and 

worked for the same insurance company since 1978. She worked 

twenty-eight hours a week in a position that was not available 
 3 

full-time. Her annual earnings from 1994 through 1997 ranged 

from $17,044 to $17,500. The trial judge found that wife "is 

exercising the full amount of her earning capacity." 

 The husband earned from $122,608 to $133,271 annually 

between 1994 and 1997. Although he earned additional income as 

an adjunct professor and an administrative judge, the trial judge 

found that his extra income was uncertain at the time of trial. 

The trial judge determined that husband had a "significantly 

greater" earning capacity than wife. 

 The trial judge also determined that the parties' joint real 

estate holdings totaled $315,038 in equity, of which wife 

received $166,300 and husband received $148,738. The wife also 

received a $15,000 monetary award payable upon the sale of the 

first of two pieces of realty. Both parties were ordered to bear 

costs associated with the property they received, except that the 

wife was ordered to share equally in any liability resulting from 

a tenant's suit on certain property awarded to the husband. 

 Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the trial 

judge's factual findings are supported by the evidence. We find 

no basis to support the husband's arguments that the spousal 

support award failed to take into consideration the parties' 

financial obligations and resources and that the judge's 

distribution improperly increased wife's financial resources and 

diminished his. 

Standard of Living Established During the Marriage
 4 

 The husband also contends that the trial judge failed to 

properly consider the standard of living established during the 

marriage. The judge found that "the standard of living during 

the marriage increased until it was very good. They lived in 

fine homes, vacationed a few times a year." The record 

establishes that the trial judge considered this statutory 

factor. The evidence supports the judge's findings. 

Parties' Property Interests

 The husband further contends that the trial judge failed to 

consider the parties' property interests, particularly the 

income-producing potential of the property awarded to the wife. 

At trial, the husband introduced evidence indicating that, in the 

past, expenses attributable to the parties' rental property 

regularly exceeded the income. The husband testified that one of 

the properties which was later awarded to wife, "has proven, 

lately, to be a disaster" due to problems collecting rent from or 

evicting the tenants. The evidence does not demonstrate that the 

trial judge abused his discretion when considering this factor. 

Marital Debt

 Finally, the husband argues that the trial judge erred in 

valuing at $4,000 an outstanding debt owed to the parties from 

previous tenants. The husband had not located the former tenants 

at the time of trial, and he testified that the debt "is not 

going to be collected if I can't find them." However, husband 

did not testify that he had terminated efforts to collect the 
 5 

debt. Therefore, we find no error in the trial judge's valuation 

of the debt at $4,000. 

 For these reasons, we hold that the trial judge considered 

the statutory factors and made factual findings that are 

supported by evidence. Because the trial judge's determination 

of spousal support was not a clear abuse of discretion, we 

summarily affirm the decision. 

 Affirmed.