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: Husband must pay $3,500 per month for nanny
By Virginia Lawyers Weekly – 7/29/2024
Where the husband argued the wife “unilaterally retained a nanny,” paying her $3,500 per month and “claiming the entire amount as work-related childcare” “right before the final court hearing,” but the record showed the nanny replaced a prior longtime nanny, and that both parties jointly hired her, this argument failed.
Background
Yemane Mehari argues that the circuit court erred in calculating child support, in determining that he owed child-support arrearages and in finding that he owed Muzit Mesfun-Mehari for unreimbursed costs for their children’s healthcare and school tuition. He also argues that the circuit court erred by dividing equally the sale proceeds from the former marital residence and by not crediting him for his post-separation-mortgage payments. Finally, he challenges the classification, valuation and distribution of two Wells Fargo bank accounts and a Fidelity investment account.
Child support
Husband argues that the circuit court erred when it found that $3,500 per month was a “reasonable and necessary” work-related childcare expense. Husband maintains that “right before the final court hearing,” wife “unilaterally retained a nanny,” paying her $3,500 per month and “claiming the entire amount as work-related childcare.”
The parties had a different nanny for five-and-a-half years until she left in September 2022. Then, contrary to husband’s assertions, both husband and wife interviewed and hired the new nanny, who started a few days after the previous nanny left. Considering the parties’ circumstances and their joint decision to hire the new nanny, the circuit court was not plainly wrong in finding that $3,500 was a “reasonable and necessary” work-related childcare expense.
Rental income
The parties agreed on the annual amount of rent that husband received, and substantially agreed on the expenses for insurance, repairs, taxes and condominium fees. But husband also included a special-assessment fee for the Valley Forge Drive property, based on a special assessment that occurred in 2022.
The circuit court adopted wife’s calculation of husband’s income, which did not include the special assessment. Husband provided no supporting documentation about the special assessment, and nothing suggested that it would continue in 2023. Thus, the trial court properly excluded the special assessment from its calculation of husband’s rental income.
Retroactive reimbursement
The circuit court heard evidence of husband’s contributions to the household and held that husband’s child-support obligation was $1,160 per month from the date of the filing of the complaint to Nov. 30, 2022, and $2,990 per month as of Dec. 1, 2022. Considering the statutory mandate, the circuit court did not err in ordering that husband’s child-support obligation be retroactive to the date of the filing of the complaint.
After hearing all the evidence and argument, the circuit court found that “[p]ursuant to the agreement of the [p]arties as articulated” at the final hearing, husband would reimburse wife “$6,364 for 50% of the costs” of G.M.’s school. The circuit court also found that wife had “incurred reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for the children” and was “entitled to reimbursement” from husband for half of the expenses.
What is more, husband and wife both testified that they continued to share expenses during the separation. Husband’s voluntary contributions during that period do not negate his obligation under Code § 20-108.1 to reimburse wife for tuition and healthcare expenses that he agreed were reasonable and necessary.
Equitable distribution
Husband also argues that the circuit court erred by dividing equally the sale proceeds from the former marital residence and by not crediting him for his post-separation-mortgage payments. And he challenges the classification, valuation and distribution of two Wells Fargo bank accounts and a Fidelity investment account. Because the circuit court acted well within its discretion in making the challenged findings, they are affirmed.
Attorneys’ fees
“‘In domestic relations cases,’ the Court will award ‘appellate attorney[] fees when the arguments on appeal are “not fairly debatable under any reasonable construction of the record or the governing legal principles.”’” After considering the equities of the case and having found that the appeal is wholly without merit, wife is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees incurred for this appeal. The case is remanded to the circuit court to determine the appropriate amount.
Affirmed and remanded.
Mehari v. Mesfun-Mehari, Record No. 0361-23-4, July 16, 2024. CAV (unpublished opinion) (per curiam). From the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Saylor). (Andrei J. Kublan; Kublan Khan PLC, on brief), for appellant. (Demian J. McGarry; Curran Moher Weis, P.C., on brief), for appellee. VLW 024-7-219. 18 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.
