Jennifer A. Stout v Russell D. Stout

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Coleman, Bumgardner and Lemons
Argued at Salem, Virginia
JENNIFER A. STOUT MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 2837-97-3 	JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
NOVEMBER 3, 1998
RUSSELL D. STOUT
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge
Leisa Kube Ciaffone (E. Scott Austin; Gentry,
Locke, Rakes & Moore, on brief), for
appellant.
No brief or argument for appellee.
Jennifer A. Stout appeals a final decree of divorce that
awarded her spousal support, but limited it to twenty-four
months. 	Finding that the trial court erred in limiting the
periodic support, we reverse.
This marriage lasted eight years during which both parties
worked and contributed to the household. 	The evidence delineated
the current earnings and financial obligations of both parties
and showed that the wife was attempting to reobtain a civil
service job that she previously held. 	The evidence also showed
that in the future the wife would have the additional expense of
providing her own medical insurance.
The divorce decree awarded spousal support "in the amount of
$350 per month for a period of twenty-four (24) months commencing
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
August 1, 1997." 	It did reserve to the wife "pursuant to
§ 20-109, the right to seek continuation of the spousal support,
for good cause shown, after the twenty-four (24) month period is
over." 	The wife argues that the time limitation on the award was
error absent evidence supporting a finding that the husband would
have no ability to pay spousal support in the next two years or
that she would have no need for spousal support. 	We agree.
The trial court awarded the wife a specified amount payable
monthly for a designated period. 	This created an award of
periodic payment under the holding of Dickson v. Dickson, 23 Va.
App. 73, 79, 474 S.E.2d 165, 168 (1996). 	The issue is whether it
is error to place a time limit on a periodic support award absent
evidence that the parties' financial circumstances will change in
the near future. 	That is the same issue decided in Brooks v.
Brooks, 27 Va. App. 314, 498 S.E.2d 461 (1998).
In Brooks, we reversed the imposition of the two-year
limitation because the record was devoid of any proof of a change
in the parties' financial circumstances. 	See id. at 317-18, 498
S.E.2d at 463; Thomas v. Thomas, 217 Va. 502, 504-05, 229 S.E.2d
887, 889-90 (1976). 	Brooks controls the present case because the
court imposed a limitation on the periodic support award and the
evidence failed to show that husband's ability to pay or wife's
need for support would change in the near future.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in limiting
the duration of the award. 	Therefore, we reverse the holding

- 3 -
that limited periodic support to twenty-four months and remand
the case for entry of a support order in accordance with this
decision.
Reversed and remanded.