Michael Keith Layne v Loretta Goodman Layne

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
MICHAEL KEITH LAYNE
v. 	Record No. 2477-94-1 	MEMORANDUM OPINION*
PER CURIAM
LORETTA GOODMAN LAYNE 	JUNE 20, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
Edward W. Hanson, Jr., Judge
(Robert L. Bohannon; Bohannon, Bohannon & Hancock, on
brief), for appellant.
(Allen J. Gordon, on brief), for appellee.
Michael Keith Layne (husband) appeals the decision of the
circuit court awarding spousal support to Loretta Goodman Layne
(wife). 	Husband argues that the trial court erred in accepting
the commissioner's recommendation that wife receive $400 a month
in spousal support. 	Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the
parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court.
Rule 5A:27.
The evidence was heard by a commissioner in chancery, who
forwarded his recommendations to the trial court. 	The trial
court confirmed the commissioner's report with minor changes.
"The decree confirming the commissioner's report is presumed to
be correct and will not be disturbed if it is reasonably
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

2
supported by substantial, competent, and credible evidence."
Brawand v. Brawand, 1 Va. App. 305, 308, 338 S.E.2d 651, 652
(1985). 	In reviewing the determination of spousal support, we
note that the chancellor must consider the relative
needs and abilities of the parties. 	He is
guided by the nine factors that are set forth
in Code § 20-107.1. 	When the chancellor has
given due consideration to these factors, his
determination will not be disturbed on appeal
except for a clear abuse of discretion.
Collier v. Collier, 2 Va. App. 125, 129, 341 S.E.2d 827, 829
(1986).
The commissioner's report noted that husband had been the
major wage earner, and had substantial experience as a mechanic.
Although husband had a history of cardiac problems, his general
health was good. 	Wife's employment history was limited, and her
health was problematic. 	Wife had custody of the couple's
children and lived with her parents. 	Husband lived in a camper
with his girlfriend.
The commissioner also determined, based upon the testimony
of the parties, that husband earned approximately $1,950 per
month and had expenses of $1,800. 	Wife earned approximately $780
per month and had expenses of $1,400.
Husband does not contest the factual determinations, but
argues that the order leaves him with insufficient funds to pay
his bills, as the commissioner failed to consider his net, rather
than gross, salary. 	However, the commissioner gave due

3
consideration to the statutory factors, including the parties'
health, financial resources, relative earning capacities and
needs, and the duration of the marriage. 	Moreover, wife's
entitlement to spousal support is independent of the parties'
obligation to support their minor children. 	"Child support and
spousal support are separate and distinct obligations based on
different criteria." 	Lambert v. Lambert, 10 Va. App. 623, 629,
395 S.E.2d 207, 210 (1990).
We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by
confirming the commissioner's report. 	Accordingly, the decision
of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.