Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Booth v. Boothgreen2 sentences2002Waste of marital assets is a matter for equitable distribution. [I]n order to alter the evaluation for an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3(E)(5), there must be a showing of use of the marital property for the benefit of one spouse and for purposes unrelated to the marriage in anticipation of divorce or separation and at a time when the marriage is in jeopardy. *198 O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 20 Va.App. 522, 526 , 458 S.E.2d 323, 325 (1995) (emphasis added) (citing Booth v. Booth, 7 Va.App. 22, 27 , 371 S.E.2d 569, 572 (1988)). 2002Waste of marital assets is a matter for equitable distribution. [I]n order to alter the evaluation for an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3(E)(5), there must be a showing of use of the marital property for the benefit of one spouse and for purposes unrelated to the marriage in anticipation of divorce or separation and at a time when the marriage is in jeopardy. *198 O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 20 Va.App. 522, 526 , 458 S.E.2d 323, 325 (1995) (emphasis added) (citing Booth v. Booth, 7 Va.App. 22, 27 , 371 S.E.2d 569, 572 (1988)). | 1 | 2 |
Perry Edward Jones v. Lori Michelle Gatesgreen1 sentence2023A court has continuing jurisdiction over an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3(K). - 11 - But the agreement’s provision requiring Randolph to indemnify Sheehy if he took any action that decreased her share of his retired pay specifically included reasonable attorney fees as part of the required indemnification. “[I]f a property settlement agreement contains a provision awarding attorney’s fees, the court must follow the terms of that agreement, to the extent allowable by law.” Jones v. Gates, 68 Va. App. 100, 106 (2017). | 1 | 1 |
Holden v. Holdengreen2 sentences2002“A decision regarding equitable distribution rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Holden v. Holden, 31 Va.App. 24, 26-27 , 520 S.E.2d 842, 844 (1999) (citing McDavid v. McDavid, 19 Va.App. 406, 407-08 , 451 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1994)). 2002“A decision regarding equitable distribution rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Holden v. Holden, 31 Va.App. 24, 26-27 , 520 S.E.2d 842, 844 (1999) (citing McDavid v. McDavid, 19 Va.App. 406, 407-08 , 451 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlingreen2 sentences2002Waste of marital assets is a matter for equitable distribution. [I]n order to alter the evaluation for an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3(E)(5), there must be a showing of use of the marital property for the benefit of one spouse and for purposes unrelated to the marriage in anticipation of divorce or separation and at a time when the marriage is in jeopardy. *198 O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 20 Va.App. 522, 526 , 458 S.E.2d 323, 325 (1995) (emphasis added) (citing Booth v. Booth, 7 Va.App. 22, 27 , 371 S.E.2d 569, 572 (1988)). 2002Waste of marital assets is a matter for equitable distribution. [I]n order to alter the evaluation for an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3(E)(5), there must be a showing of use of the marital property for the benefit of one spouse and for purposes unrelated to the marriage in anticipation of divorce or separation and at a time when the marriage is in jeopardy. *198 O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 20 Va.App. 522, 526 , 458 S.E.2d 323, 325 (1995) (emphasis added) (citing Booth v. Booth, 7 Va.App. 22, 27 , 371 S.E.2d 569, 572 (1988)). | 1 | 1 |
McDavid v. McDavidgreen2 sentences2002“A decision regarding equitable distribution rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Holden v. Holden, 31 Va.App. 24, 26-27 , 520 S.E.2d 842, 844 (1999) (citing McDavid v. McDavid, 19 Va.App. 406, 407-08 , 451 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1994)). 2002“A decision regarding equitable distribution rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Holden v. Holden, 31 Va.App. 24, 26-27 , 520 S.E.2d 842, 844 (1999) (citing McDavid v. McDavid, 19 Va.App. 406, 407-08 , 451 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Amburn v. Amburngreen2 sentences1995The trial court correctly adhered to the principle espoused in Aster v. Gross, 7 Va.App. 1 , 371 S.E.2d 833 (1988), and its progeny that in order to alter the evaluation for an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3(E)(5), there must be a showing of use of the marital property for the benefit of one spouse and for purposes unrelated to the marriage “in anticipation of divorce or separation ... [and] at a time when the marriage is in jeopardy.” Booth, 7 Va.App. at 27 , 371 S.E.2d at 572 ; see also Alphin v. Alphin, 15 Va.App. 395, 402 , 424 S.E.2d 572, 576 (1992); Amburn v. Amburn, 1995The trial court correctly adhered to the principle espoused in Aster v. Gross, 7 Va.App. 1 , 371 S.E.2d 833 (1988), and its progeny that in order to alter the evaluation for an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3(E)(5), there must be a showing of use of the marital property for the benefit of one spouse and for purposes unrelated to the marriage “in anticipation of divorce or separation ... [and] at a time when the marriage is in jeopardy.” Booth, 7 Va.App. at 27 , 371 S.E.2d at 572 ; see also Alphin v. Alphin, 15 Va.App. 395, 402 , 424 S.E.2d 572, 576 (1992); Amburn v. Amburn, | 1 | 1 |
Alphin v. Alphingreen2 sentences1995The trial court correctly adhered to the principle espoused in Aster v. Gross, 7 Va.App. 1 , 371 S.E.2d 833 (1988), and its progeny that in order to alter the evaluation for an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3(E)(5), there must be a showing of use of the marital property for the benefit of one spouse and for purposes unrelated to the marriage “in anticipation of divorce or separation ... [and] at a time when the marriage is in jeopardy.” Booth, 7 Va.App. at 27 , 371 S.E.2d at 572 ; see also Alphin v. Alphin, 15 Va.App. 395, 402 , 424 S.E.2d 572, 576 (1992); Amburn v. Amburn, 1995The trial court correctly adhered to the principle espoused in Aster v. Gross, 7 Va.App. 1 , 371 S.E.2d 833 (1988), and its progeny that in order to alter the evaluation for an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3(E)(5), there must be a showing of use of the marital property for the benefit of one spouse and for purposes unrelated to the marriage “in anticipation of divorce or separation ... [and] at a time when the marriage is in jeopardy.” Booth, 7 Va.App. at 27 , 371 S.E.2d at 572 ; see also Alphin v. Alphin, 15 Va.App. 395, 402 , 424 S.E.2d 572, 576 (1992); Amburn v. Amburn, | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Smithgreen2 sentences1994“Ordinarily, when making an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3(A), a court determines the value of marital property ‘as of the date of the evidentiary hearing on the evaluation issue.’ ” 3 Smith v. Smith, 18 Va. App. 427, 430 , 444 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1994). 1994“Ordinarily, when making an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3(A), a court determines the value of marital property ‘as of the date of the evidentiary hearing on the evaluation issue.’ ” 3 Smith v. Smith, 18 Va. App. 427, 430 , 444 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Buchanan v. Buchanangreen2 sentences1993“We will not search the record for errors in order to interpret the [husband’s] contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.’’ Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56 , 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). 8 We recognize that a distinct difference exists between spousal support and the evidentiary requirements associated with such an award under Code § 20-107.1, and an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3. 1993“We will not search the record for errors in order to interpret the [husband’s] contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.’’ Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56 , 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). 8 We recognize that a distinct difference exists between spousal support and the evidentiary requirements associated with such an award under Code § 20-107.1, and an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aster v. Gross
green
2 sentences1995The trial court correctly adhered to the principle espoused in Aster v. Gross, 7 Va.App. 1 , 371 S.E.2d 833 (1988), and its progeny that in order to alter the evaluation for an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3(E)(5), there must be a showing of use of the marital property for the benefit of one spouse and for purposes unrelated to the marriage “in anticipation of divorce or separation ... [and] at a time when the marriage is in jeopardy.” Booth, 7 Va.App. at 27 , 371 S.E.2d at 572 ; see also Alphin v. Alphin, 15 Va.App. 395, 402 , 424 S.E.2d 572, 576 (1992); Amburn v. Amburn, 1995The trial court correctly adhered to the principle espoused in Aster v. Gross, 7 Va.App. 1 , 371 S.E.2d 833 (1988), and its progeny that in order to alter the evaluation for an equitable distribution award under Code § 20-107.3(E)(5), there must be a showing of use of the marital property for the benefit of one spouse and for purposes unrelated to the marriage “in anticipation of divorce or separation ... [and] at a time when the marriage is in jeopardy.” Booth, 7 Va.App. at 27 , 371 S.E.2d at 572 ; see also Alphin v. Alphin, 15 Va.App. 395, 402 , 424 S.E.2d 572, 576 (1992); Amburn v. Amburn, | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.