Mohamud A. Saleh v. Huda I. Ashoor ( 2001 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Overton
MOHAMUD A. SALEH
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2307-00-4 PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
HUDA I. ASHOOR
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
Alfred D. Swersky, Judge
(Robert J. Hill, on brief), for appellant.
(Arlene Beverly Callender; Legal Services of
Northern Virginia, on brief), for appellee.
Mohamud A. Saleh (husband) appeals the decision of the
circuit court awarding Huda I. Ashoor (wife) spousal support, both
periodic and lump sum. On appeal, husband contends that the trial
court erred (1) in the amount of spousal support it awarded to
wife; (2) in the duration of the award of spousal support; and (3)
in awarding wife a lump sum payment. Husband asks that the
judgment of the trial court as to lump sum and periodic spousal
support be reversed and remanded for further proceedings as to the
amount and duration of the support. 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 § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
On appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party
prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250,
391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990).
Procedural Background
Husband filed a bill of complaint for divorce on the
grounds of cruelty and desertion. Wife filed an answer and
cross-bill on the ground of cruelty. At the final hearing, the
parties both proceeded on the ground of living separate and
apart for one year. The parties stipulated as to the amount of
child support, custody and visitation. The trial court was
asked to rule on the issues of spousal support and equitable
distribution. The court awarded wife a lump sum payment and a
periodic award of support, but no equitable distribution award.
I.
"Whether and how much spousal support will be awarded is a
matter of discretion for the trial court." Barker v. Barker, 27
Va. App. 519, 527, 500 S.E.2d 240, 244 (1998). "In fixing the
amount of the spousal support award, . . . the court's ruling
will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a clear
abuse of discretion. We will reverse the trial court only when
its decision is plainly wrong or without evidence to support
it." Gamble v. Gamble, 14 Va. App. 558, 574, 421 S.E.2d 635,
644 (1992) (citations omitted).
- 2 -
Husband has had steady, full-time employment as a chemist
since 1990. Wife, on the other hand, was unemployed and staying
at home with their young child. Husband also has a considerable
amount of other financial resources, including a thrift savings
plan, bonds, and pension. The record demonstrates wife's need
of support and husband's ability to pay.
"In setting the amount of support, the court must consider
the factors listed in Code § 20-107.1, including the financial
condition of the parties, the distribution of the marital
estate, the tax consequences, and other factors related to the
equities between the parties." Taylor v. Taylor, 27 Va. App.
209, 216-17, 497 S.E.2d 916, 919 (1998). The trial court
considered the relevant factors listed in Code § 20-107.1, and
we find no abuse of discretion in its award of spousal support
to wife.
II.
Because there was no "evidence that the need for support
will cease within the immediate or reasonably foreseeable
future," the trial court did not err in awarding the periodic
payments for a period of forty-eight months. Johnson v.
Johnson, 25 Va. App. 368, 376, 488 S.E.2d 659, 663 (1997). The
trial court determined that the forty-eight month period was
necessary for wife to be rehabilitated considering the fact that
their child would not be school age for another three years.
The trial court also considered the fact that wife has no work
- 3 -
experience in the United States and that she had a diminished
earning capacity and a demonstrated need for support.
III.
"The court, in its discretion, may decree that maintenance
and support of a spouse be made in periodic payments for a
defined duration, or in periodic payments for an undefined
duration, or in a lump sum award, or in any combination
thereof." Code § 20-107.1. "Generally, when courts do make
lump sum spousal awards they do so because of special
circumstances or compelling reasons, such as . . . a payee
spouse's immediate need for a lump sum to maintain herself or
himself or satisfy debts." Blank v. Blank, 10 Va. App. 1, 5,
389 S.E.2d 723, 725 (1990). Since coming to this country with
her husband, wife has not been employed. Only recently did she
begin to obtain some job training skills. Wife demonstrated an
immediate need for a lump sum payment in order to support
herself and her child. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion in awarding the lump sum.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 4 -