Court Opinion

ID: 9625142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:29:16.442046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:10.196254
License: Public Domain

ANNUNZIATA, Judge.
Naheed Saeed Morrill (wife) appeals from a final decree of divorce from Clarence Grant Morrill, II (husband). She contends that the trial court erred by reopening the record on an issue heard by the commissioner in chancery, making a finding *624inconsistent with that of the commissioner, and, thereby, entering an internally inconsistent divorce decree. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the trial court’s equitable distribution award and remand for reconsideration of the equities.
I. Background
On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below. Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 41 Va.App. 582, 589, 586 S.E.2d 896, 899 (2003). So viewed, the evidence establishes that wife filed a bill of complaint for divorce from husband on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. Husband filed a cross-bill of complaint for divorce on the grounds of constructive desertion and cruelty.
The trial court entered a decree of reference, governed by the Fairfax County Circuit Court’s March 11, 1996 general decree relating to divorce causes. The general decree directed the commissioner in chancery to make findings on the grounds of divorce, including the circumstances and factors that may have contributed to the dissolution of the marriage, but further provided that “the effect of that behavior upon the well-being of the family and/or marital property and its value are to be presented at the equitable distribution hearing.” The decree ordered the commissioner to answer, inter alia, the following:
6. Were the grounds of divorce alleged in the pleadings proved by corroborated testimony, and if so, how proved?
8A. For those situations in which either party seeks relief under the so-called equitable distribution provisions of the Code of Virginia, upon request of either party state the circumstances and factors which may have contributed to the dissolution of the marriage, (which shall include any conduct constituting grounds for divorce, any specific act of cruelty and/or any extramarital relationship). However, the effect of that behavior upon the well-being of the family and/or the marital property and its value are to be present*625ed at the equitable distribution hearing. Evidence that a party did not contribute nonmonetarily to the well-being of the family, thereby requiring the other party to take on additional marital responsibilities should also be presented at the equitable distribution hearing.
At the commissioner’s hearing, husband presented evidence to establish that he was justified in leaving the marriage because he discovered wife had fraudulently incurred credit card debt, amounting to almost $86,000, in husband’s name alone and without his knowledge.
The commissioner’s report recommended that wife’s grounds for divorce on desertion be granted because husband had not met his burden of proving the credit card forgery allegation. The commissioner stated,
the evidence on this issue [the credit card debt] is in equipoise. With the testimony of one party in total contradiction of the other party, as clearly supported by the record here, and no other evidence beyond the documents from which both parties are testifying, GRANT MORRILL did not meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that NAHEED MORRILL forged his signature in the circumstances and for the purposes for which he has testified.
The commissioner found that, even if husband had proved that wife had forged his name to incur the credit card debt without his knowledge or permission, it would not constitute legal justification for deserting the marriage. Husband filed exceptions to the commissioner’s report.
At the equitable distribution hearing, the trial court heard husband’s exceptions to the commissioner’s report, which included objections to the commissioner’s findings regarding: (1) the failure to prove legal justification for the husband leaving the marriage, and, (2) the failure to prove the credit card forgery allegations. Husband asked the trial court to take additional evidence from a handwriting expert on the latter issue. He argued the evidence that the commissioner had previously taken was for the limited purpose of establish*626ing the grounds of divorce and, therefore, the trial court could take new evidence for the purpose of equitable distribution in accordance with section 8A of the general decree of reference. Wife argued that, because the commissioner had taken evidence on the forgery allegations, the record on the issue was closed.
The trial court allowed husband to present evidence on the credit card forgery issue, including testimony by a handwriting expert. The court explained its ruling, stating that it would allow the presentation of additional evidence on the credit card forgery issue, not for the purpose of determining whether it constituted legal justification for desertion, but rather only for the purposes of determining the equitable distribution of the marital estate. The court stated,
[W]hat strikes me is that it was raised in a different context, and for a different purpose ... you may have a defendant who wants to fight the desertion issue, but not with the same force that he wants to fight it on an equitable distribution ground and for that reason he does not call a handwriting expert.
I can tell you that I will not hear issues in this trial that have already been—that were referred to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner has already taken testimony on it, but my reaction, having now had an opportunity to study this matter is that for the purposes for which [husband’s counsel] is raising it, it was not raised before the Commissioner, and it is not resolved.
New evidence on the forgery issue was then admitted for the purposes of equitable distribution.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court sustained the commissioner’s report, but stated, “I don’t see any reason why I need to go back and grant the Husband’s exceptions on the Commissioner’s findings.” The court granted wife a divorce on the grounds of desertion, stating that even if husband had proved the credit card forgery allegations, he would not have established a legal justification for deserting the marriage. The court also stated that it found the handwriting *627expert to be credible, and it accordingly concluded that wife incurred the credit card charges “without [husband’s] consent and through a process of forgery.” The court further stated, “as to the circumstances contributing to the dissolution of the marriage, while I do not find that the forgeries constitute a legal justification for desertion, I do find that [the forgeries are] a significant factor” in determining an equitable distribution award pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(E).
In the final order, entered on May 9, 2003, the court found that wife amassed credit card debt in the amount of approximately $86,000. The court stated “that the Wife forged the credit card access checks” and “that the credit card charges and checks were incurred by the Wife without the Husband’s knowledge and through a process of forgery and fraud by the Wife.” The trial court therefore ordered wife to “fully indemnify the Husband should the Husband hereafter be obligated and required to pay any or all of the total credit card debt.” The court also awarded husband any fees and costs associated with calling the handwriting expert in the equitable distribution hearing.
At the May 9, 2003 hearing on the entry of the final decree, wife, by way of an exception to the final decree, continued to assert that the court was bound by the commissioner’s findings on the credit card forgery issue. The court treated wife’s exception as a motion for reconsideration, and, after hearing brief argument, denied the motion. The court stated, “I do not see that we—that what I did here and the findings I made, I don’t find in any way that they’re precluded by what happened before the Commissioner.”
II. Analysis
A. Reopening of the Record
In matters of divorce and equitable distribution, we will not overturn a decision committed to the trial court’s sound discretion unless there is a showing that it abused that discretion. An abuse of discretion can be found if the court uses “an improper legal standard in exercising its discretion*628ary function.” Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va.App. 255, 262, 578 S.E.2d 833, 836 (2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We find that the trial court abused its discretion because it erred as a matter of law in reopening the record on the issue of wife’s alleged forgery.
Code § 8.01-610 provides: “The report of a commissioner in chancery shall not have the weight given to the verdict of a jury on conflicting evidence, but the court shall confirm or reject such report in whole or in part, according to the view which it entertains of the law and the evidence.” The trial court here confirmed the commissioner in chancery’s report. However, at husband’s urging, the trial court reopened the record on the ground that the Fairfax County Circuit Court general decree permitted it to reexamine the factual finding made by the commissioner in chancery regarding the allegation that wife fraudulently used husband’s credit cards because the same factual issue arose in a different legal context, viz. in the context of equitable distribution. Wife contends that, by its own terms, the general decree does not permit the trial court to reexamine the commissioner’s determination that husband failed to prove his allegations of forgery. She also argues that our decision in Joynes v. Payne, 36 Va.App. 401, 551 S.E.2d 10 (2001), compels the conclusion that the trial court erred in reopening the record. We agree with wife.
“ ‘Although trial courts have discretion to interpret their own orders, that discretion must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily or capriciously.’ ‘Furthermore, an order must be interpreted within its four corners.’ ” Smoot v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 495, 500, 559 S.E.2d 409, 411-12 (2002) (quoting Rusty’s Welding Service v. Gibson, 29 Va.App. 119, 130, 510 S.E.2d 255, 261 (1999); United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 682, 91 S.Ct. 1752, 29 L.Ed.2d 256 (1971)). We find that the trial court’s interpretation of the general decree is not supported by a plain reading of its language and is, therefore, not reasonable.
The general decree directs the commissioner in chancery to “state the circumstances and factors which may have *629contributed to the dissolution of the marriage, (which shall include any conduct constituting grounds for divorce, any specific act of cruelty and/or any extramarital relationship).” “However,” the general decree continues, “the effect of that behavior upon the well-being of the family and/or the marital property and its value are to be presented at the equitable distribution hearing” before the trial court. (Emphasis added).
By the plain terms of the general decree, the commissioner in chancery was directed to make findings of fact on whether husband proved the allegations asserted as grounds for divorce or as factors and circumstances leading to the dissolution of marriage, viz. wife’s alleged forgery. It only excepted from the commissioner’s authority the taking of evidence which relates to the effects “of that behavior on the well-being of the family and/or the marital property and its value.” (Emphasis added). In short, as directed by the general decree, the commissioner in the instant case determined whether the alleged forgery—the basis of husband’s grounds for divorce and a factor or circumstance relevant to the equitable distribution of marital assets1—was proved. The trial court, as directed by the general decree, was to determine the effects of any proved forgery on the well-being of the family and marital property; the general decree permitted nothing more.
In this case, the commissioner in chancery specifically found that the forgery did not occur because husband failed to carry his burden of proof. Indeed, the trial court accepted the commissioner in chancery’s report. Because the general decree did not permit the trial court to reexamine the commissioner in chancery’s determination that the forgery did not occur, we find that this Court’s decision in Joynes controls the outcome. In Joynes, we held that an attempt to introduce
*630additional evidence into the record after the commissioner [in chancery] has filed his report is treated as a motion to receive after-discovered evidence. Four requirements must be met before a record can be reopened to receive additional evidence: (1) the evidence must have been discovered after the record was closed; (2) it could not have been obtained prior to the closing of the record through the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) it is not merely cumulative, corroborative, or collateral, and (4) it is material, and as such, should produce an opposite result from that contained in the commissioner’s report.
Joynes, 36 Va.App. at 418, 551 S.E.2d at 18 (citations omitted).
Here, husband did not establish that the testimony of the handwriting expert could not have been obtained before the commissioner in chancery filed her report. Indeed, husband presented no argument or evidence, and the trial court issued no ruling, related to the Joynes test for reopening the record. As such, the trial court erred in reopening the record on the forgery issue.2 Accordingly, we vacate the equitable distribution award and we remand to the trial court for reconsideration of the equities.
B. Attorney Fees
Wife requests that we vacate the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to husband, which award was based on the handwriting expert’s fee and the portion of husband’s attorney’s fees attributable to the forgery issue. Because we *631find that the trial court erred in hearing additional evidence on the forgery issue, we vacate the award of attorney’s fees and costs.
Husband requests this Court to direct wife to pay his attorneys fees and costs incurred on appeal. See O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 23 Va.App. 690, 695, 479 S.E.2d 98, 100 (1996). We deny the request in part. However, we find that husband is entitled to attorneys fees and costs incurred in responding to wife’s “Motion to Deny Appellee Oral Hearing,” which was based on husband’s failure to file a brief with proper margins pursuant to Rule 5A:4. Rule 5A:4(C) provides that no appeal shall be dismissed for failure to comply with the Rule, but that the Clerk may require that the document be redone in compliance with the rule. The Clerk did not require husband’s brief to be redone; thus, the brief was deemed to be in compliance with the rule. Wife’s motion was without merit. Therefore, we remand to the trial court with direction that it award husband reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in defending that motion. Id.

Vacated and remanded.

. Code § 20-107.3(E)(5) provides that the “circumstances and factors which contributed to the dissolution of the marriage" shall be considered in making an equitable distribution award.

. Nothing in our opinion changes well-established law that a commissioner in chancery's report does not have the binding effect of a jury verdict, see Code § 8.01-610, or that the commissioner in chancery serves to aid, not replace, the trial court's judicial function. See Dukelow v. Dukelow, 2 Va.App. 21, 26-27, 341 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1986). We hold only that where an order refers certain issues to a commissioner in chancery and thereby defines the scope of the commissioner’s evidentiary responsibilities relative to those of the trial court, whether the record should be reopened is governed by existing law. Here, the trial court could have rejected the commissioner’s report or husband could have established that the Joynes requirements were met. See Code § 8.01-610; Joynes, 36 Va.App. at 418, 551 S.E.2d at 18.