Thomas Allan Walters v Karen E. Riesbeck Walters

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Baker, Bray and Overton
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
THOMAS ALLAN WALTERS
v. 	Record No. 2388-94-1 	MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
KAREN ELIZABETH RIESBECK WALTERS 	OCTOBER 10, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY
John M. Folkes, Judge
Breckenridge Ingles (Martin, Ingles & Ingles,
Ltd., on brief), for appellant.
William E. Moore (Moore, Foard & Dias, on
brief), for appellee.
Appellant claims that the circuit court, in a decree a
vinculo matrimonii, erred by (1) failing to value, identify, and
order a division of marital and separate property, (2)
miscalculating the income of the parties for the purposes of an
alimony award, (3) awarding alimony to appellee, and (4) ordering
appellant to pay 80% of medical expenses of the children not
covered by insurance. 	We hold that the court did err as to the
first assignment, but that the error was harmless. 	Finding no
other error by the court, we affirm.
The court is required by statute to "determine the legal
title as between the parties, and the ownership and value of all
property . . . ." 	Code § 20-107.3(A); see Bosserman v.
Bosserman, 9 Va. App. 1, 5, 384 S.E.2d 104, 107 (1989); Bowers v.
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
Bowers, 4 Va. App. 610, 616-17, 359 S.E.2d 546, 550 (1987). 	In
this case the court accepted the decision of the commissioner to
adopt the de facto division of the property as it had been done
by the parties. 	The commissioner's ruling, however, was vague as
to the legal status and value of many items of property, and the
circuit court should have made a clear ruling so as to conform
strictly with Code § 20-107.3.
The factual circumstances in this case, however, lead to a
conclusion that the error was harmless. 	The purpose of the
statutory requirements in Code § 20-107.3 is to fairly divide the
value of the property. 	Bosserman, 9 Va. App. at 5, 384 S.E.2d at
107; Robinette v. Robinette, 4 Va. App. 123, 130, 354 S.E.2d 808,
811 (1987). 	Although the bulk of the property was ultimately
given to the appellee, this result is not unjust. 	The error does
not compel us to reverse the trial court's decision.
We find that the court made no other errors. 	Accordingly,
we affirm.
Affirmed.