The same court that has so sanctimoniously scolded moral condonation of adultery in some cases finds plenty of scope for legitimate punishment of immoral conduct in the case of a man who incurred criminal convictions and sentences, causing his wife great embarrassment and the family assets considerable expense. The commissioner, upheld by the circuit court, found that the husband's convictions had a "devastating impact on the marriage." Wife's symptoms of great emotional distress included weight loss, and treatment for stress and depression resulting from the scandal. The trial court awarded the wife 90% of the marital property, plus a monetary award, and the Court of Appeals finds that proper. So it is perfectly all right, once the state has punished a criminal offender through the criminal law system, for the divorce courts to punish him again for the same conduct, but the trial court "did not impermissibly use husband's criminal conduct punitively," whatever, exactly, that means. The $20,018 award was a dissipation remedy, for the husband had withdrawn $59,000, of which $20,018 was approximately half, from his retirement accounts to pay restitution costs. It was also all right for the court not to impute income to the wife, because when her job was eliminated, the employer's offer of a new job was in Norfolk, and that would have meant moving when the children were in school in Fairfax. Also upheld is the $20,000 fee award. Budnick v. Budnick, 18 VLW 1137 (4/20/04).