A Carluzzo Rochkind & Smith note: Following is an article by Virginia Lawyers Weekly. We did not handle this case, but it brings up important marital points your divorce lawyer should be familiar with. For more than 30 years our divorce lawyers in Manassas have helped clients with such matters in Prince William County, Fairfax County, Woodbridge, and throughout Northern Virginia. If you have any questions or would like to schedule an appointment, please contact our law firm at (703) 361-0776.
Domestic Relations: $2.1 million brokerage account is husband’s separate property
By Virginia Lawyers Weekly – 5/27/2025
Where the evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that a brokerage account was opened by husband with approximately $200,000 before the marriage, and the wife failed to show the husband expended significant personal efforts in managing this account, the trial court did not err when it held the account, which has now grown to $2.1 million, was husband’s separate property.
Background
Tania Samra claims that the trial court erred by classifying the brokerage account of Michael Samra as husband’s separate property.
Evidence
The disputed asset here is a Fidelity brokerage account in husband’s name. By the time of the parties’ separation, the account was valued at $2.1 million. Husband testified that he opened the brokerage account with approximately $200,000 before the marriage.
In David v. David, 64 Va. App. 216 (2015), this court imposed on the non-owning spouse “the burden of proving (1) that the brokerage account substantially appreciated during the marriage, and (2) that [the owning spouse] expended significant personal efforts in managing this account.” Clearly the first element is satisfied here.
Regarding the second element, the trial court credited husband’s testimony that he left the investments in the brokerage account and “didn’t really pay much attention [to] . . . the management of these accounts.” Although wife argues that she impeached husband’s trial testimony with his deposition testimony that he sometimes contributed excess funds during the marriage to the brokerage account, husband explained that inconsistency; he said that he was confused in his deposition between the two Fidelity accounts at issue and that the money was not contributed to the brokerage account. The trial court was not plainly wrong to credit husband’s testimony.
Despite wife’s criticism of that finding, the record does not compel a different one. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to husband, the record supports the trial court’s finding that the entire brokerage account remained husband’s separate property.
Reconsider
Two weeks after the trial court issued its letter opinion, wife moved the court to reconsider its classification of the brokerage account or, in the alternative, to “reopen discovery . . . to allow [wife] to subpoena the remaining available account statements and records from Fidelity.” Wife’s motion to reconsider argued that the court “placed the burden of proof on the wrong party.” Wife also alleged that husband made “three deposits” into the brokerage account “within a year of the parties’ separation”— something wife said she did not realize until she reviewed “thirty months of statements after trial.” The trial court denied wife’s motion to reconsider.
The trial court here could properly find that wife failed to provide a valid excuse for not introducing the account statements at trial, whether as evidence in her own case-in-chief or when cross-examining husband. To be sure, another trial judge could have properly found that the discrepancy raised by the later-filed account statements warranted reconsideration. But “an abuse of discretion cannot be shown merely because ‘[r]easonable trial judges and even some members of this Court, had they been sitting as trial judges in this case,’ might have reached a different conclusion than the one under review.”
Affirmed.
Samra v. Samra, Record No. 1985-23-4, May 13, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Raphael). From the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Devine). Scott A. Surovell (Surovell Isaacs & Levy PLC, on briefs), for appellant. Melanie Hubbard (Malinowski Hubbard, PLLC, on brief), for appellee. VLW 025-7-122. 13 pp.
If you are in need of experienced divorce lawyers who gets results, please contact us online or by calling 703-361-0776.
Divorce lawyers in Manassas serving Fairfax County, Prince William County, and all of Northern Virginia.
