support hearing in Virginia

2026See Antonelli v. Antonelli, 242 Va. 152 , 154 - 10 - (1991) (“When invoking the divorce court’s continuing jurisdiction under Code § 20-108, following entry of a final decree of divorce, a party seeking a change in court-ordered child support has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a material change in circumstances justifying modification of the support requirement.”).

2017It states, in part, that a court may “revise and alter such [prior] decree concerning the care, custody, and maintenance of the children and make a new decree concerning the same, as the circumstances of the parents and the benefit of the children may require.” Before a trial court may act pursuant to Code § 20-108, the “party seeking a change in court-ordered child support has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a material change in circumstances justifying modification of the support requirement.” Antonelli v. Antonelli, 242 Va. 152, 154 , 409 S.E.2d 117, 118-19 (1991).

2023Cf. John, 263 Va. at 320 (declining to consider on appeal scientific articles the defendant did not introduce as a trial exhibit); see also Albert v. Albert, 38 Va. App. 284 , 291 n.2 (2002) (holding child support worksheets were not part of appellate record because they were not introduced into evidence at the support hearing).

2022Cf. John, 263 Va. at 320 (declining to consider on appeal scientific articles the defendant did not introduce as a trial exhibit); see also Albert v. Albert, 38 Va. App. 284 , 291 n.2 (2002) (holding child support worksheets were not part of appellate record because they were not introduced into evidence at the support hearing); Boyd v. County of Henrico, 42 Va. App. 495, 505 (2004) (holding that opposing counsel’s statements referenced in appellate brief were not part of evidentiary record on appeal where they were not reflected in the trial transcript). - 21 - rather than supporting appellan

2023Cf. John, 263 Va. at 320 (declining to consider on appeal scientific articles the defendant did not introduce as a trial exhibit); see also Albert v. Albert, 38 Va. App. 284 , 291 n.2 (2002) (holding child support worksheets were not part of appellate record because they were not introduced into evidence at the support hearing).

2022Cf. John, 263 Va. at 320 (declining to consider on appeal scientific articles the defendant did not introduce as a trial exhibit); see also Albert v. Albert, 38 Va. App. 284 , 291 n.2 (2002) (holding child support worksheets were not part of appellate record because they were not introduced into evidence at the support hearing); Boyd v. County of Henrico, 42 Va. App. 495, 505 (2004) (holding that opposing counsel’s statements referenced in appellate brief were not part of evidentiary record on appeal where they were not reflected in the trial transcript). - 21 - rather than supporting appellan

1999See Yohay v. Ryan, 4 Va. App. 559, 566 , 359 S.E.2d 320, 324 (1987).

1999See Yohay v. Ryan, 4 Va. App. 559, 566 , 359 S.E.2d 320, 324 (1987).

2015Analysis “When invoking the divorce court’s continuing jurisdiction under Code § 20-108, following entry of a final decree of divorce, a party seeking a change in court-ordered child support has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a material change in circumstances justifying modification of the support requirement.” Antonelli v. Antonelli, 242 Va. 152, 154 , 409 S.E.2d 117 (1991) (citing Edwards v. Lowry, 232 Va. 110, 112 , 348 S.E.2d 259 (1986)).

2015Analysis “When invoking the divorce court’s continuing jurisdiction under Code § 20-108, following entry of a final decree of divorce, a party seeking a change in court-ordered child support has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a material change in circumstances justifying modification of the support requirement.” Antonelli v. Antonelli, 242 Va. 152, 154 , 409 S.E.2d 117 (1991) (citing Edwards v. Lowry, 232 Va. 110, 112 , 348 S.E.2d 259 (1986)).

2022Cf. John, 263 Va. at 320 (declining to consider on appeal scientific articles the defendant did not introduce as a trial exhibit); see also Albert v. Albert, 38 Va. App. 284 , 291 n.2 (2002) (holding child support worksheets were not part of appellate record because they were not introduced into evidence at the support hearing); Boyd v. County of Henrico, 42 Va. App. 495, 505 (2004) (holding that opposing counsel’s statements referenced in appellate brief were not part of evidentiary record on appeal where they were not reflected in the trial transcript). - 21 - rather than supporting appellan

2022Vescuso, 5 Va. App. at 66 ; see also Smith, 16 Va. App. at 635 .

2011Otherwise, ‘“[t]he burden is on the party seeking the imputation to prove that the other parent was voluntarily foregoing more gainful employment, either by producing evidence of a higher-paying former job or by showing that more lucrative work was currently available.”’ Joynes v. Payne, 36 Va. App. 401, 421 , 551 S.E.2d 10, 19 (2001) (quoting Niemiec v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 446, 451 , 499 S.E.2d 576, 579 (1998)). 5 Because we conclude appellant is not entitled to an income reduction, we need not address his contention that the record contains no evidence that a reduction would not impair

2011Otherwise, ‘“[t]he burden is on the party seeking the imputation to prove that the other parent was voluntarily foregoing more gainful employment, either by producing evidence of a higher-paying former job or by showing that more lucrative work was currently available.”’ Joynes v. Payne, 36 Va. App. 401, 421 , 551 S.E.2d 10, 19 (2001) (quoting Niemiec v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 446, 451 , 499 S.E.2d 576, 579 (1998)). 5 Because we conclude appellant is not entitled to an income reduction, we need not address his contention that the record contains no evidence that a reduction would not impair

2011“Under law of the case doctrine, a legal decision made at one [stage] of litigation, unchallenged in a subsequent appeal when the opportunity to do so existed, becomes the law of the case for future stages of the same litigation, and the parties are deemed to have waived the right to challenge that decision at a later time.” Kondaurov v. Kerdasha, 271 Va. 646, 658 , 629 S.E.2d 181, 188 (2006) (qoting Virginia Vermiculite, Ltd. v. W.R.

2011“Under law of the case doctrine, a legal decision made at one [stage] of litigation, unchallenged in a subsequent appeal when the opportunity to do so existed, becomes the law of the case for future stages of the same litigation, and the parties are deemed to have waived the right to challenge that decision at a later time.” Kondaurov v. Kerdasha, 271 Va. 646, 658 , 629 S.E.2d 181, 188 (2006) (qoting Virginia Vermiculite, Ltd. v. W.R.

2011Otherwise, ‘“[t]he burden is on the party seeking the imputation to prove that the other parent was voluntarily foregoing more gainful employment, either by producing evidence of a higher-paying former job or by showing that more lucrative work was currently available.”’ Joynes v. Payne, 36 Va. App. 401, 421 , 551 S.E.2d 10, 19 (2001) (quoting Niemiec v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 446, 451 , 499 S.E.2d 576, 579 (1998)). 5 Because we conclude appellant is not entitled to an income reduction, we need not address his contention that the record contains no evidence that a reduction would not impair

2011Otherwise, ‘“[t]he burden is on the party seeking the imputation to prove that the other parent was voluntarily foregoing more gainful employment, either by producing evidence of a higher-paying former job or by showing that more lucrative work was currently available.”’ Joynes v. Payne, 36 Va. App. 401, 421 , 551 S.E.2d 10, 19 (2001) (quoting Niemiec v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 446, 451 , 499 S.E.2d 576, 579 (1998)). 5 Because we conclude appellant is not entitled to an income reduction, we need not address his contention that the record contains no evidence that a reduction would not impair

2001See, e.g., Yohay, 13 Va. App. at 566, 359 S.E.2d at - 3 - 324 (noting that court modifying child support award must consider "the present circumstances of both parties").

2000In Smith v. Smith, 18 Va.App. 427, 434 , 444 S.E.2d 269, 274 (1994), we held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to include capital gains in the gross income computation where the realization of the capital gains was not contemporaneous with the support hearing and "[n]o income realized from the capital gain[s] remained as a liquid asset from which support could be paid.” We also noted that the gains were "used to reduce marital debt or enhance the marital estate and presumably [were] taken into account” in the concomitant equitable distribution proceeding.

2000In Smith v. Smith, 18 Va.App. 427, 434 , 444 S.E.2d 269, 274 (1994), we held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to include capital gains in the gross income computation where the realization of the capital gains was not contemporaneous with the support hearing and "[n]o income realized from the capital gain[s] remained as a liquid asset from which support could be paid.” We also noted that the gains were "used to reduce marital debt or enhance the marital estate and presumably [were] taken into account” in the concomitant equitable distribution proceeding.

1998Furr v. Furr, 13 Va. App. 479, 481 (1992) (citation omitted).

1996While the trial court was correct that Mr. Grimshaw made a general appearance in the first divorce action when he requested that the support hearing be continued, see Kiser v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 169 Va. 574, 591 , 194 S.E. 727, 734 (1938); New River Mineral Co. v. Painter, 100 Va. 507, 509 , 42 S.E. 300, 301 (1902), it erred in holding that personal jurisdiction based on the general appearance carried over to the refiled bill of complaint.

1996While the trial court was correct that Mr. Grimshaw made a general appearance in the first divorce action when he requested that the support hearing be continued, see Kiser v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 169 Va. 574, 591 , 194 S.E. 727, 734 (1938); New River Mineral Co. v. Painter, 100 Va. 507, 509 , 42 S.E. 300, 301 (1902), it erred in holding that personal jurisdiction based on the general appearance carried over to the refiled bill of complaint.

1996While the trial court was correct that Mr. Grimshaw made a general appearance in the first divorce action when he requested that the support hearing be continued, see Kiser v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 169 Va. 574, 591 , 194 S.E. 727, 734 (1938); New River Mineral Co. v. Painter, 100 Va. 507, 509 , 42 S.E. 300, 301 (1902), it erred in holding that personal jurisdiction based on the general appearance carried over to the refiled bill of complaint.

1996While the trial court was correct that Mr. Grimshaw made a general appearance in the first divorce action when he requested that the support hearing be continued, see Kiser v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 169 Va. 574, 591 , 194 S.E. 727, 734 (1938); New River Mineral Co. v. Painter, 100 Va. 507, 509 , 42 S.E. 300, 301 (1902), it erred in holding that personal jurisdiction based on the general appearance carried over to the refiled bill of complaint.