The Court of Appeals upholds a finding of waste against a husband sold many items during the ten-year separation, though there was a court order saying not to, in Moret v. Moret 5/08/2018. He argued that the parties' overwhelming marital debts justified it.
“[T]he burden is on the party who last had the funds to establish . . . that the funds were used for living expenses or some other proper purpose. If the party is unable to offer sufficient proof, the [trial] court must value the property at a date other than the date of the evidentiary hearing so as to achieve an equitable result.” Clements v. Clements, 10 Va. App. 580, 588, 397 S.E.2d 257, 261 (1990).
The Court upholds an "alternate valuation date" to account for these sales, and the use of husband's loan application to determine those alternate values, even though the items sold for less than those values. The trial court found that he "failed to realize the best price for personal property upon sale, resulting in a significant wasting of marital assets.” It thus ordered him to pay the wife half the values given on the loan application. When he objects that the actual sales were a better measure of value, the Court responds that "the linchpin of the problem" with all of it was his failure to get the wife's agreement to the sales.
"Although the sales do not appear to be illegitimate, that is not a mitigating factor under Code § 20-107.3(E)(10) that either the trial court or this Court must consider, thus appellant’s reliance on his alleged good faith business dealings carries no weight."
The Court likewise upholds the trial court's refusal to give husband any credit for reducing the marital debts with the proceeds of these sales.
It also upholds imputation of income from a business, a spousal support award, and a refusal to recalculate arrearages back to before a pendente lite modification.