Virginia Fairfax County Divorce Decree Child Custody Lawyers Attorney

Virginia Fairfax County Divorce Decree Child Custody Lawyers Attorney

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

PHILIP J. DIETZ, JR. v. SALLIE B. DIETZ

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

October 19, 1993, Decided

Facts:

The husband opened a bank account into which he deposited his post-separation salary, but paid support and his share of the mortgage out of marital assets. He later purchased a new automobile and furniture using funds from his post-separation wages. As a part of his employment compensation, the husband had acquired options to purchase stock in his corporate employer. The trial court classified the automobile and furniture as separate property, required the husband to pay to the wife 53 percent of the marital portion of the net proceeds from the sale of any shares of stock acquired, but refused to order the wife to release her claim for dependent income tax exemptions although the husband was ordered to pay child support. Plaintiff husband and defendant wife, appealed from the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Virginia), which entered the final decree of divorce providing for custody of the parties’ children, child and spousal support, the distribution of the parties’ jointly owned property, monetary awards, and other relief.

Issue:

Whether trial court has authority to order a custodial parent to sign a declaration that he or she will not claim the children as dependents for income tax purposes?

Discussion:

This court held that the trial court had no authority to order a custodial parent to sign a declaration that he or she would not claim the children as dependents, that the property acquired by one spouse with wages earned after the last

separation

was separate property, and that deferred compensation in the form of stock options should be considered under the provisions of Va. Code Ann. 20-107.3(G) regarding pension, profit-sharing, or deferred compensation plans. This court affirmed the divorce decree in part, but reversed and remanded the distribution of the stock options. The provisions of the decree affected by the award of more than 50 percent of the marital share of the net proceeds from the sale of stock acquired through the husband’s stock options were reversed and remanded for the purpose of limiting the award based on the husband’s stock options.

Conclusion:

This court hence affirmed the divorce decree in part, but reversed and remanded the distribution of the stock options. The provisions of the decree affected by the award of more than 50 percent of the marital share of the net proceeds from the sale of stock acquired through the husband’s stock options were reversed and remanded for the purpose of limiting the award based on the husband’s stock options.

Disclaimer:These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm s unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the

SRIS Law Group

. The SRIS Law Group has offices in

Virginia

, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina & California. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com