Court Cannot Order Life Insurance

Divorce, Property Settlement, Equitable Distribution, Life Insurance

Court May Examine Future Needs in Equitable Distribution

The Virginia Court of Appeals recently confirmed a trial court's approach to equitable distribution after divorce.  In White v. White, husband, 75, sought divorce from wife, 50.  Husband's attorney argued successfully that his future needs should be considered by the court in light of his age and poor health.  Indeed, Va. Code 20-107.3(E) requires courts to consider the relative age and health of the parties when distributing a marital estate.  The Court of Appeals made clear the trial court did not err by contemplating husband's future needs upon considering these requisite factors. 

Unconscionable Premarital Agreement

In Chaplain v. Chaplain, the Virginia Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court's holding that a premarital agreement was enforceable.  Husband, a Virginia native with a twenty million dollar fortune, married Wife, a Moroccan immigrant of limited means.  Prior to marriage, Husband arranged for Wife to endorse a premarital agreement, telling Wife, whose literacy was described as "able to read English on a Chinese menu," that she was signing marriage papers.  The agreement waived equitable distribution in the event of a divorce and awarded wife only $100,000, if she was still married and living with Husband at the time of this death.  Husband made no disclosures about his wealth, telling Wife only that he was "not a wealthy man."  While the trial court did not observe any unconscionable aspects to the agreement, the Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed noting the gross disparity in the distribution and the circumstances under which Wife signed the agreement.  The trial court will now have a second chance to determine how to properly distribute the marital estate. 

Court examines equitable division of tax refunds

Virginia Court of Appeals affirms trial court's distribution of tax refunds from loss on beach home.

Court of Appeals: Personal Injury Settlement was Marital Property

In Chretien v. Chretian, the Virginia Court of Appeals recently considered the issue of personal injury settlements and their place in equitable distribution schemes.  The case was heard in Richmond on appeal from the Circuit Court of Orange. 

In Chretien, Ms. Chretian was injured while riding as a passenger on her husband's motorcycle. Mr. Chretian's motorcycle crossed the double-yellow line, ultimately causing an accident. Ms. Chretian reached a settlement with various insurance companies for her injuries in the amount of almost $150,000. Three years after the settlement, the Chretians separated and ultimately divorced. 

While the trial court ultimately ruled Mr. Chretian should not benefit from the settlement because of his negligence in causing the accident which injured his wife (a line of reasoning for which the Court of Appeals expressed approval), the Courts did make clear the rule for considering whether personal injury settlements are marital or separate:

Code § 20-107.3 provides:  “In the case of any personal injury or workers’ compensation recovery of either party, the marital share as defined in subsection H of this section shall be marital property.”  Code § 20-107.3(H) defines “marital share” as  that part of the total personal injury or workers’ compensation recovery attributable to lost wages or medical expenses to the extent not covered by health insurance accruing during the marriage and before the last separation of the parties, if at such time or thereafter at least one of the parties intended that the separation be permanent. 

In Chretian, the Court ultimately determined there was no evidence Ms. Chretian's settlement compensated her for anything other than lost wages or unreimbursed medical expenses.  Accordingly, the settlement was marital property.  Unfortunatly for Mr. Chretian, however, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's finding that equity would not be served by affording Mr. Chretian any of the settlement due to his negligent operation of the motorcycle in the accident.  

 

Court of Appeals: Cars Are Joint Marital Property Under Virginia Law

In Lightburn v. Lightburn, husband and wife obtained a divorce.  The trial court classified the couple’s vehicles as the property of the husband rather than the joint property of both husband and wife.  As such, wife was not entitled to any of the cars’ value.

The Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, and noted that under Virginia law, there is a presumption that all property is jointly held by a married couple.  The Court stated that the husband did not present enough evidence to rebut the presumption that the cars were owned by both he and his wife.  Specifically, the appeals court stated that no evidence was introduced at trial to show that the husband purchased the cars using separate funds, all of which were acquired during the eleven-year marriage.  Given the lack of evidence to the contrary and the presumption of joint ownership, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and ruled that the wife was entitled to half of the vehicles’ value.

Adultery: Clear and Convincing

Madison County Circuit Court finds clear and convincing evidence of adultery.