Although the trial court found that the parties' monetary and non-monetary contributions to the marriage and to the acquisition and care of the marital property were equal, the trial judge considered that the wife caused the marriage to dissolve when she left to live with another man. 20 Va. App. When dividing the equity in the marital residence, the trial court considered the nature and character of the debts on the martial residence. 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 in weighing the many considerations and circumstances that are presented in each case.
Wife contends that the trial court erred in finding that the tanning business was marital property.
The evidence of husband's contribution to the tanning business was in conflict. Wife claims that she started the business herself, with her own money, and with funds borrowed by her. She contends that husband was paid for his labor at the Lynchburg salon just like any other employee, and she disputes his contribution to the operation of the business. Husband claims that the parties started the business together and that it was jointly financed by them. He claims that he contributed to the operation of the business and that income from the business sustained the marriage.