Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between Michael Powell and Melanie Knoepfler-Powell over the modification of their child custody arrangement. The couple divorced in 2017 and agreed to joint legal custody of their child, with primary physical custody granted to Melanie. In 2021, Melanie intended to move to Alabama and sought to modify the custody arrangement. Michael objected and sought an injunction to prevent the relocation. He also sought primary physical custody if Melanie relocated or more time with the child if she stayed in Virginia. Both parties also requested "tie-breaking authority" regarding the child's legal custody.The Fairfax County Circuit Court denied Michael's motion to modify the custody arrangement. The court allowed their child, who was nine years old, to testify and used her notes as a guide for questioning. The court admitted the notes as a demonstrative exhibit, meaning they had no independent probative value and were meant to explain or clarify other substantive evidence. The court used uncorroborated portions of the notes in its decision not to modify the custody arrangement. Michael appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred by reviewing the child's notes while she testified, admitting the notes as a demonstrative exhibit, and relying on them in reaching its decision.The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial court's decision. It ruled that Michael failed to sufficiently preserve for appeal any challenges to the trial court's review of the child's notes or the admission of the notes as a demonstrative exhibit. The Court of Appeals also determined that the trial court's ruling was not actually based on the child's notes, but on testimony contained in the record.The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the portion of the Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the judgment of the trial court. It held that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on the uncorroborated portions of the child's notes in determining whether it was in the child's best interests to modify the custody arrangement. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration. View "Powell v. Knoepfler-Powell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the sanctions order entered by the trial court against Joseph Monroe for pursuing a shareholder-derivative suit against his wife, Lisa Monroe, the majority shareholder of a closely held corporation, holding that the sections order violated Rule 1:1.Lisa and Joseph were the married co-owners of MEPCO Materials, Inc. One week after Joseph, as the then-sole director, filed for divorce he caused MEPCO to filed a civil action against Lisa for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty. After Joseph resigned his position at MEPCO he sought to convert the action to a shareholder-derivative action. The granted the motions, converted the suit to a derivative action, and then dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Thereafter, the trial court granted Lisa's motion for sanctions and ordered Joseph to pay $70,097 to MEPCO and Lisa. The Supreme Court vacated the order granting sanctions, holding (1) Joseph had standing to appeal the sanctions award; but (2) the sanctions order violated Rule 1:1 because it was not timely entered. View "Monroe v. Monroe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the ruling of the circuit court that it lacked the authority to amend the Military Pension Division Order (MPDO) it issued earlier memorializing the parties' negotiated agreement regarding the division of Defendant's military retirement pay, holding that the court of appeals erred.After the final decree was entered in this case, Husband moved to amend the final decree, the equitable distribution order, and the MPDO. The circuit court dismissed the motion on the ground that the court had no authority to amend the MPDO because more than twenty-one days had passed since the order was entered. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that federal law preempted Virginia law on questions involving the divisibility of military retirement benefits. The Supreme Court adopted the holding of the court of appeals in Owen v. Owen, 14 Va. App. 623 (1992), with regard to the division of military retirement benefits and reversed, holding that federal law did not bar the parties' in this case from upholding the MPDO. View "Yourko v. Yourko" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court vacating as void ab initio a portion of an earlier divorce decree that had ordered Appellant to pay child support because the court issuing the support award never acquired personal jurisdiction over Father, holding that there was no error.The circuit court concluded that the divorce court did not have personal jurisdiction over Appellant when it issued the final divorce decree, and therefore, the portion of the final decree order an in personam award of child support was void ab initio. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the divorce court did not obtain personal jurisdiction over Appellant pursuant to Appellee's requested service by order of publication; and (2) therefore, the provisions of the divorce decree awarding child support were void ab initio. View "Evans v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing a petition for appeal filed by a person who was not a party in the proceeding from which the appeal was taken, holding that there was no error in the judgment of the court of appeals.Michelina Bonanno was the mother of Elizabeth Quinn. Elizabeth had a daughter from a previous relationship. Elizabeth and Bonanno were awarded joint legal custody of the child, and Elizabeth was awarded physical custody. Elizabeth subsequently married James Quinn. When Elizabeth died, James filed a petition for adoption, asserting that Bonanno's consent was unnecessary because of lack of visitation or contact. After the circuit court entered a final order of adoption Bonanno filed a motion to vacate and set aside the order and then filed a petition for appeal. James filed a motion to dismiss, noting that Bonanno had not filed a motion to intervene in the adoption proceeding. The circuit court denied Bonanno a hearing on the motions, and Bonanno appealed. The circuit court dismissed the appeals, concluding that Bonanno lacked standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals (1) lacked jurisdiction to hear Bonanno's petition for appeal; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by awarding James appellate attorney's fees. View "Bonanno v. Quinn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court awarding Tracey Martin her agreed-upon share of proceeds of John Wood's insurance policy after he committed suicide, holding that the circuit court did not err.During their divorce proceeding, Wood agreed to maintain a preexisting life insurance policy for the partial benefit of Tracey Martin. The circuit court incorporated the agreement (the agreement) into the final divorce decree. Six years later, in defiance of the court order, Wood removed Martin as a beneficiary and designated his brothers, his new wife, and a friend as beneficiaries on the policy. Wood committed suicide two days later. In a lawsuit initiated by Martin, the insurer interpleaded the policy proceeds. The circuit court awarded Martin her share of the proceeds consistent with the divorce decree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Va. Code 38.2-3122(B) did not bar Martin's claim because the final divorce decree that ratified and incorporated the agreement created an equitable assignment; and (2) faced with competing equities, the circuit court did not err in finding Martin's beneficial interest in the interpleader proceeds to be superior to that of the new beneficiaries. View "Wood v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's appeal from the judgment of the court of appeals, denied Plaintiff's motion for sanctions, and sanctioned Plaintiff pursuant to Va. Code 8.01-271.1, holding that Plaintiff's jurisdictional statement did not satisfy Rule 5:17(c)(2) and that Plaintiff's conduct merited sanctions.This appeal was the latest in a series of "habitually frivolous" litigation Plaintiff initiated against Plaintiff as a part of a continual effort to contest child custody, visitation, and support orders. The appeal challenged the court of appeals' judgment affirming the trial court's (1) denial of a series of motions filed by Plaintiff, (2) determination of the amount of attorney's fees to award Defendant in connection with litigation related to the custody and visitation of the parties' children, and (3) award of additional fees to Defendant. The Supreme Court held (1) Plaintiff's jurisdictional statement did not satisfy Rule 5:17(c)(2); (2) Plaintiff's conduct warranted the sanction of Plaintiff paying Defendant's reasonable attorney's fees in costs; and (3) Plaintiff shall be prohibited from filing in the Supreme Court any pleading or paper against Defendant without obtaining the services of a practicing Virginia attorney or obtaining leave of the Court to file any pro se pleading. View "Barrett v. Minor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting Defendants' demurrers to Plaintiff's claims alleging that various professionals who participated in custody and visitation proceedings tortiously interfered with her parental rights, holding that the tort of interference with parental rights did not extend to the facts alleged by Plaintiff.Plaintiff, the mother of three children, challenged the proceedings resulting an order awarding sole legal and physical custody of the children to their father. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged tortious interference with parental rights and defamation. Plaintiff alleged that professionals such as the children's guardian ad litem, counselors, and therapists conspired, lied, and acted maliciously to deprive her of the rightful custody of her children. Plaintiff further alleged that one of the therapists defamed her. The circuit court granted the defendants' demurrers to the claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the allegations made in the complaint did not give rise to a cause of action for tortious interference with parental rights; and (2) the circuit court properly dismissed the defamation claims against the therapist. View "Padula-Wilson v. Landry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court ruling that a pension distribution order was not inconsistent with the final decree of divorce in this case, and therefore declining to amend the pension distribution order under Va. Code 20-107.3(K)(4), holding that there was no reversible error in the court of appeals' judgment affirming the circuit court's ruling.The same day it entered the decree the circuit court entered an order entitled "Order Dividing Military Pension" (ODMP). Both parties signed the decree and the ODMP. Wife later filed motions to reopen the proceeding and for entry of an order amending the ODMP, arguing that the ODMP impermissibly altered the distribution made in the decree. The circuit court declined to amend the ODMP on the grounds that the ODMP was not inconsistent with the decree. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in interpreting section 20-107.3(K)(4) in denying Wife's motion to amend the decree. View "Jackson v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court that denied a request to retroactively modify a pendente lite spousal support award, holding that the circuit court has authority to retroactively modify a pendente lite spousal support award and that the circuit court here abused its discretion in its consideration of the motion to reconsider the pendente lite spousal support award and resulting arrearage that it initially awarded in this case.Kathryn Tawes filed a complaint for divorce against James Everett and filed a motion for temporary spousal support, moving for a pendente lite hearing on the matter. The circuit court entered a pendente lite order. In the final divorce decree the circuit court ordered Everett to pay spousal support, declined to modify the pendente lite order retroactively, and ordered Everett to pay pendente lite spousal support arrearage. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to reconsider modifying the pendente lite spousal support award amount. View "Everett v. Tawes" on Justia Law