Gregory O. Wigglesworth v. Carrie F. Wigglesworth ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
GREGORY O. WIGGLESWORTH
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2498-96-2 PER CURIAM
APRIL 22, 1997
CARRIE F. WIGGLESWORTH
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY
William H. Ledbetter, Jr., Judge
(Joseph J. Ellis; Ellis & Ellis, on brief),
for appellant.
(Carrie F. Wigglesworth, pro se, on brief).
Gregory O. Wigglesworth (husband) appeals the decision of
the circuit court reserving spousal support for Carrie F.
Wigglesworth (wife). Husband argues that the trial court erred
in reserving future spousal support because wife failed to
request a reservation of support in her pleadings. 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. Rule 5A:27.
Wife was awarded spousal support by order of the juvenile
and domestic relations district court. Husband commenced this
action in the circuit court, seeking to terminate the existing
order of spousal support. Thus, this case commenced in the
circuit court in a significantly different procedural posture
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
than Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 340 S.E.2d 578 (1986), which
husband relies upon as authority. In Boyd, the wife failed to
request spousal support when she filed her initial pleadings in
the circuit court, no order concerning spousal support was filed
during the proceedings, and the issue was not raised by the
parties in their trial memoranda. Id. at 18, 340 S.E.2d at 579.
We ruled that the issue of spousal support was not raised in the
pleadings and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award relief
not sought. Id. at 19, 340 S.E.2d at 580. See also Reid v.
Reid, 24 Va. App. 146, 150, 480 S.E.2d 771, 773 (1997).
Here, the requested relief was the termination of support,
which wife opposed. As noted by the trial court, "the parties
and counsel adduced almost 200 pages of transcribed testimony
primarily on the issue of spousal support." The trial court
correctly noted that wife
currently receives spousal support under a
valid and final order of the juvenile court.
She does not have to affirmatively plead for
something she has already been awarded. It
is [husband] who seeks relief in this case,
by way of a termination of his spousal
support obligation.
The court found that husband assumed responsibility for payments
on a tax lien and the outstanding indebtedness on the car in
wife's possession and that those were material changes which
justified a termination in support. The court then noted that,
"[i]f circumstances materially change again in the future, [wife]
has the right, to be expressly reserved in the divorce decree, to
2
petition for a modification as provided by statute."
We find no error in the trial court's decision to grant
husband's request to terminate support, but reserve wife's right
to petition for support again in the future. Accordingly, the
decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.
3